Kerala High Court
Ananthakrishnan N vs State Of Kerala on 7 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 406 of OF 2025
2025:KER:1903
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 17TH POUSHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 406 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ANANTHAKRISHNAN N
AGED 17 YEARS
XII TH CLASS, RAJEEV GANDHI MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL KANNUR DISTRICT- MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER:
SHABINA N, W/O HARINDRAN P. ,42 YEARS, SHNEHALAYA(HO)
MURIYAD (PO),KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670307
BY ADVS.
SUKARNAN
P.NANDAKUMAR (CLT)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP: BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-., PIN - 695001
2 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION- KANNUR
KANNUR DISTRICT-. [GENERAL CONVENER, KANNUR REVENUE
DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM], PIN - 670002
3 CHAIRMAN APPEAL COMMITTEE
KANNUR REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM. O/O DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION- KANNUR KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN -
670002
WP(C) NO. 406 of OF 2025
2025:KER:1903
2
4 ADDL. DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM JAGATHY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
[GENERAL CONVENER, KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM
2024-25], PIN - 695014
GP SRI SYAMANTHAK B S
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 406 of OF 2025
2025:KER:1903
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.406 of 2025
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P2 order and direct the 4th respondent to permit the petitioner and his teammates to participate in the Parichamutt (Boys) [H.S.S. General] in the Kerala State School Kalolsavam.
2. The petitioner and his teammates had participated in the above competition in the Kannur Revenue District Kalolsavam on 22.11.2024. Due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent there was considerable delay in commencing the competition, which had a negative impact on the petitioner's team performance. Due to such delay, the petitioner and his teammates where under severe stress and could not perform well. Even though the petitioner pointed out these aspects to the judges, they did not consider the same in the proper WP(C) NO. 406 of OF 2025 2025:KER:1903 4 perspective. Although the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent, the same was also dismissed by Ext.P2 cryptic order without any application of mind. Ext.P2 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in the writ petition. He argued that the petitioner's team had secured second prize only because of the delayed commencement of the competition. If the competition had began on time, the petitioner's team would have secured the first prize. Therefore, the petitioner's team may be permitted to participate in the Kerala State School Kalolsavam. Hence, the writ petition may be allowed.
5. The learned Government Pleader opposed the writ petition. He submitted that there was no delay in commencing the competition. Moreover, all the teams had WP(C) NO. 406 of OF 2025 2025:KER:1903 5 participated almost at the same time and the judges have judged the competition as per the performance of the teams. The Appellate Authority has also reconsidered the matter and have concluded that the petitioner's team is only entitled to the second prize. The writ petition is meritless and is only to be dismissed.
6. The petitioner's case is that; due to the delayed commencement of the competition, the petitioner's team performance was adversely effected. The Appellate Authority has not considered any of the contentions in its proper perspective, instead, by Ext.P2 stereotyped order, dismissed the appeal.
7. Indisputably, all the teams had performed during the same time in the very same competition. It is quite natural that when school festivals of such nature are conducted, there would be some delay. After participating in the competition, the petitioner cannot turn around and now complain about the delay, especially after knowing that WP(C) NO. 406 of OF 2025 2025:KER:1903 6 the petitioner's team only secured second place. The experts in the field have rightly evaluated the competition and awarded the marks as per their performance.
8. In Rhomy Chandra Mohan v Gen. Convenor, Balakalotsavam and Yuvajanotsavam, [(1992) 1 KLJ 515] this Court has held as follows:
"5. It needs no reiteration that the award of marks and ranks in a contest of this nature is primarily the duty and responsibility of the Judges who have been appointed to judge on the merits or demerits of the various contestants. It is also a well-known fact that the ultimate difference between the top notches in such contests is very often marginal and little, and the ranks go by very low differences in marks. But that is inevitable. The judges who are experts react differently from different angles and they have different perceptions. It is not possible to have any absolute standards or absolute judges who react alike in all situations. It is precisely because of this that there is a multiplicity of judges for such contests, so that the sensitivities of the others offset the individual predictions or tastes or ideas of one. Since computers cannot be judges, nor the judges automation, differences based on individual perceptions are inevitable and have to be accepted. This system of assessment has therefore been adopted for the purpose of assessing the relative merit and the authorities have to depend upon the judgment of the judges appointed for the purpose. May be a different set of judges may take a different view of the matter. But that does not mean that the assessment of merits by one set of judges is lacking in validity or otherwise irregular. Assessment of merit is ultimately a matter of objective assessment by a set of impartial judges guided by relevant principles. If that be so, the fact that the petitioner did not get A grade I and was awarded only A grade II cannot be found fault with. As stated earlier, the assessment was made by judges competent for the purpose. It is not possible for this court to WP(C) NO. 406 of OF 2025 2025:KER:1903 7 sit in appeal over such awards in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is not within the province of this court to re-assess the merits or demerits of candidates participating in competition made by competent judges appointed for the purpose. This court can interfere only when there is a plain illegality, mala fides, perversity, or other grossly vitiating circumstance in the assessment of merit. So far as that aspect is concerned, the petitioner has raised certain grounds in the original petition. According to him, the judges who assessed the merits of the Bharatanatyam candidates were substitutes appointed on the spot for the original judges, without any enquiry regarding their qualifications for appointment as judges. It is also stated that Unnikrishnan, one of the judges was only a student studying Bharatanatyam and that Smt. Babita is from the same district. Thereby, it is stated, both of them are not qualified to be appointed as judges. It is also pointed out that no video photography of the competition was taken despite the mandate of the Rules for the purpose.
9. This Court has repeatedly reiterated the above principles in a plethora of judgments. [Read the judgments of the Division Benches of this Court in Akash Chandran v. General Convenor and Director of Public Instructions and Others [2018 (5) KHC 972] and Additional Director of Public Institutions, DPI Office v. Anagha K and others [2022 (5) KHC 473].
10. On analysing the facts and the materials on record, especially on considering the reports and the orders of the Experts in the field of art, namely the Judges of the WP(C) NO. 406 of OF 2025 2025:KER:1903 8 competition and the Appellate Authority, who have concurrently concluded that the petitioner's team was only entitled to the second prize, it is not for this Court to sit in further appeal over the above decisions and take a contrary view.
11. The Judges and Appellate Authorities of the Kalolsavam, judge the competition as per the regulations that are in vogue. They cannot be equated with judicial or quasi-judicial functionaries. Their function is confined to judging the competition based on the participant's performance in each event. Their wisdom and reasoning are final in such matters.
12. It is trite that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed not against the decision but the decision-making process. Of course, patent illegality or an error apparent on the face of the decision, which goes to its roots, may vitiate the decision making process. WP(C) NO. 406 of OF 2025 2025:KER:1903 9
13. In the instant case, this Court does not find any patent illegality or apparent error in the impugned order, which warrants the exercise of the power of judicial review.
The writ petition is devoid of any merits and is consequentially dismissed Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE SCB.07.01.25.
WP(C) NO. 406 of OF 2025 2025:KER:1903 10 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 406/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NET RESULT, SHOWING THE GRADE AND POSITION OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO:
DDEKNR/7929/2024/E3 (84) DATED 05.12.2024 PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT