Kerala High Court
Vijay K vs The State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 295 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:354
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 16TH POUSHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 295 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
VIJAY K
AGED 16 YEARS
S/O. K. BABU RAJAN, KUZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE,
PANTHEERANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY FATHER,
GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND, K. BABU RAJAN, S/O.
RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 48 YEARS, KUZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE,
PANTHEERANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 019, PIN - 673019
BY ADVS.
T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR
JAYKAR.K.S.
VANDANA A.
ANJALI R. MENON
C.SIVADAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673001
4 THE GENERAL CONVENER
(DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION), KOZHIKODE REVENUE
DISTRICT SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL 2024, OFFICE OF THE
WP(C) NO. 295 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:354
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001
5 THE APPEAL COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
KALOLSAVAM 2024, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001
6 THE GENERAL CONVENER
63RD KERALA STATE SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL PROGRAMME
COMMITTEE 2024-2025, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
GP SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 295 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:354
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 295 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P6 order and to direct the 6th respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the "Mono Act" (HSS Boys) competition in the 63rd Kerala State School Kalolsavam, 2024-2025.
2. The petitioner had participated in the Mono Act (HSS Boys) competition in the Kozhikode Revenue District School Kalolsavam. Although the petitioner performed well, he was only awarded the fifth place. The petitioner's performance was affected due to the defects in the audio system. Furthermore, the Judges had not awarded the marks as per the norms in Ext.P3 Kalolsavam Manual. The Judges ought to have assessed the performance of the competitors as per the parameters laid down in Ext.P3. Although the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the 5 th respondent, the same was rejected by Ext.P6 cryptic and non-speaking order. Ext.P6 is arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the writ petition. WP(C) NO. 295 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:354
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 stated that there was a malfunctioning in the sound system and that the Judges failed to comply with the specific stipulations in Ext.P3, wherein, the Judges were bound to award marks to the competitors as per the five criterias mentioned in column No.24 of Ext.P3. Even though the petitioner challenged the matter in Appeal, the Appellate Authority has not considered these matters in its proper perspective. Hence, Ext.P6 is illegal. Therefore, the writ petition may be allowed.
5. The learned Government Pleader opposed the application. She submitted that the only ground that was raised before the Appellate Authority in Ext.P5 Appeal is that the stand of the microphone was not properly fixed. The contention regarding non-compliance of Ext.P3 has been raised for the first time before this Court in the writ petition. Therefore, the said contention is untenable. Moreover, as per the Stage Manager's report, there was no defect in the WP(C) NO. 295 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:354 audio system. The petitioner has only secured the fifth place. The Judges have rightly evaluated the competition and the Appellate Authority has re-considered the matter judiciously. The writ petition is hence only to be dismissed.
6. The petitioner's case is that due to the faulty fixation of the microphone, the petitioner could not perform well. Moreover, the Judges have not awarded the marks as per the criteria laid down in Ext.P3.
7. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it is quite evident that in Ext.P5 appeal, the only contention that was raised was that the stand of the microphone was not properly fixed. The contention regarding non-compliance of Ext.P3 criteria was not raised before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Appellate Authority cannot be found fault with for not considering the said contention. The Stage Manager's report shows that there was no defect in the audio system. Admittedly, the petitioner had secured the fifth place in the competition.
8. The Judges of the above competition and the Appellate Authority have considered the petitioner's WP(C) NO. 295 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:354 grievances and have concluded that he is only entitled to the fifth place.
9. In Rhomy Chandra Mohan v Gen. Convenor, Balakalotsavam and Yuvajanotsavam, [(1992) KHC 211] this Court has held as follows:
"4. 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 wellknown 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 WP(C) NO. 295 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:354 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 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."
10. This Court has repeatedly reiterated the 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 WP(C) NO. 295 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:354 others [2022 (5) KHC 473].
11. On an analysis the facts and the materials on record, especially the reports and the orders of the Experts in the field of art, namely the Judges of the competition and the Appellate Authority, who have concurrently concluded that the petitioner was only entitled to the fifth place, it is not for this Court to sit in further appeal over the above decisions and take a contrary view.
12. It is discernible that the Appellate Authority has considered the Judges' observations, the marks of the rival participants and the Stage Manager's report regarding the malfunction of the audio system and has rejected the petitioner's appeal by the impugned order.
13. The Judges and the Appellate Authority of the Kalolsavam judged 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 participants' performance in each event. Their wisdom and reason are final in such matters. Even otherwise, the purported delay in WP(C) NO. 295 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:354 starting the competition and the defects on the stage were equally applicable to all the participants.
14. 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.
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 rkc/06.01.25 WP(C) NO. 295 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:354 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 295/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE PERTAINING TO 61ST (2022-2023) KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2022-23, DATED 03/01/2023 (STATE LEVEL) ISSUED BY DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION Exhibit P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE PERTAINING TO 62ND (2023-2024) KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2022-23, DATED 04/01/2024 (ERRONEOUSLY SHOWN AS 04/01/2023, DUE TO TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR) (STATE LEVEL) ISSUED BY DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION Exhibit P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE CHAPTER 15 (SERIAL NO.24) OF THE VALUATION CRITERIA (FOR MONO ACT) OF THE KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM MANUAL Exhibit P-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL RESULT ALONG WITH THE TABULATION SHEET AND SCORE SHEET PERTAINING TO THE MONO ACT HSS (BOYS), DATED 20/11/2024 OF DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM, DATED 20/11/2024 Exhibit P-5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM PERTAINING TO APPEAL, DATED 20/11/2024 Exhibit P-6 A COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C2/9152/2024 (187) DATED 07/12/2024 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P-7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/01/2025 IN WP(C) NO. 46784 OF 2024