Kerala High Court
Nandana Sundar vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 38 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:678
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. 38 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
1 NANDANA SUNDAR
AGED 16 YEARS
(MINOR), D/O DEEPA SUNDAR, CLASS XI, KRIST RAJ
H.S.S., KOLLAM, AMMAN NAGAR 32, AYATHIL P.O.,
KOLLAM, REP. BY HER MOTHER DEEPA SUNDAR, W/O SUNDAR
KUMAR S., AMMAN NAGAR 32, AYATHIL P.O., KOLLAM, PIN
- 691021
2 ADHEENA BENZIGER
AGED 17 YEARS
(MINOR), D/O. REETHAMOL, CLASS XII, KRIST RAJ
H.S.S., KOLLAM, REENA COTTAGE, FFRA-111, POLAYATHODE
P.O., KOLLAM, REP. BY HER MOTHER REETHAMOL REENA,
W/O. BENZIGER AUGUSTIN, COTTAGE, FFRA-111,
POLAYATHODE P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
3 ALEENA BENZIGER
AGED 17 YEARS
(MINOR), D/O. REETHAMOL, CLASS XII, KRIST RAJ
H.S.S., KOLLAM, REENA COTTAGE, FFRA-111, POLAYATHODE
P.O., KOLLAM, REP. BY HER MOTHER REETHAMOL REENA,
W/O. BENZIGER AUGUSTIN, COTTAGE, FFRA-111,
POLAYATHODE P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
4 KEERTHANA S
AGED 17 YEARS
(MINOR), D/O. REMYA L., CLASS XII, KRIST RAJ H.S.S.,
KOLLAM, EDATHARA KIZHAKIDATHU VEEDU, KILIKOLLOOR
P.O., MG NAGAR-69, KOLLAM, REP. BY HER MOTHER REMYA
L., W/O. K.T. SABU, EDATHARA KIZHAKIDATHU VEEDU,
KILIKOLLOOR.P.O., MG NAGAR-69, KOLLAM, PIN - 691004
5 ANN MARIAM NETTO
AGED 16 YEARS
(MINOR), D/O REENA RANI, CLASS XI, KRIST RAJ H.S.S.,
KOLLAM, ALEX VILLA, BHAVANA NAGAR 248, KADAPPAKKADA
P.O., KOLLAM, REP. BY HER MOTHER REENA RANI, W/O.
WP(C) NO. 38 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:678
TONEY NETTO, ALEX VILLA, BHAVANA NAGAR
248,KADAPPAKKADA.P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691008
6 SOUPARNIKA SEN
AGED 16 YEARS
(MINOR), D/O. RINKU SENJITH, CLASS XI, KRIST RAJ
H.S.S., KOLLAM, DWARAKA PUTHENNADA, THEKKENAGAR 220,
THEKKEVILA.P.O., KOLLAM, REP. BY HER MOTHER RINKU
SENJITH, W/O. SENJITH SARASIJAN, DWARAKA PUTHENNADA,
THEKKENAGAR 220, THEKKEVILA.P.O., KOLLAM, PIN -
691016
7 ABHIRAMI PRASAD
AGED 16 YEARS
(MINOR), D/O. RESHMI.K.S, CLASS XI, KRIST RAJ
H.S.S., KOLLAM, MULLAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, CONTONMENT
SOUTH, KOLLAM P.O., KOLLAM, REP. BY HER MOTHER
RESHMI.K.S., W/OPRASAD M.J., MULLAPPARAMBIL HOUSE,
CONTONMENT SOUTH, KOLLAMP.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
8 MEGHA K.S
AGED 16 YEARS
(MINOR), D/O. SREELATHA KUMARY, CLASS XI, KRIST RAJ
H.S.S., KOLLAM, VADAKKYATHU VEEDU, VADAKKEVILA, P.K.
NAGAR 190, KURUP SIR ROAD,VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM,
REP. BY HER MOTHER SREELATHA KUMARY, W/O. KUNJUMON
B., VADAKKYATHU VEEDU, VADAKKEVILA, P.K. NAGAR 190,
KURUP SIR ROAD, VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN -
691010
9 SREE PARVATHY A.S
AGED 16 YEARS
(MINOR), D/O AMBLI .R, CLASS XI, KRIST RAJ H.S.S.,
KOLLAM,CHITHIRA VEETIL, PADINJATTATHIL, VADAKKEVILA
P.O., KOLLAM. REP. BY HER MOTHER AMBILI R., W/O.
SUNIL S. DAS, CHITHIRA VEETIL, PADINJATTATHIL,
VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691010
0 BETHSEBA DAFNI J
AGED 16 YEARS
(MINOR), D/O. VIMALA RANI, CLASS XI, KRIST RAJ
H.S.S., KOLLAM, BETHSEBA BHAVANAM, NEENDAKARA,
NEENDAKARA S.O., KOLLAM, REP. BY HER MOTHER VIMALA
RANI, W/O. JAMES A., BETHSEBA BHAVANAM, NEENDAKARA,
NEENDAKARA S.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691582
BY ADVS.
GEORGE MATHEW
BIJILY JOSEPH
WP(C) NO. 38 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:678
SUNIL KUMAR A.G
MATHEW K.T.
GEORGE K.V.
BOBY MATHEW
STEPHY K REGI
ADITHYA BENZEER
MEDHA B.S.
JOHN ZACHARIAH DOMINIC
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
, KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2024-2025, REP. BY ITS
GENERAL CO-ORDINATOR/DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE CHAIRMAN
APPEAL COMMITTEE FOR KERALA SCHOOL KALOTHSAVAM 2024-
2025/CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
EDUCATION, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION,
DPI BHAVAN, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695014
4 THE GENERAL CONVENOR-PROGRAMME COMMITTEE FOR KERALA
SCHOOL KALOTHSAVAM 2024-2025
DISTRICT LEVEL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DDE
OFFICE, THEVALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691009
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SRI B S SYAMANTHAK
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. 38 OF 2025
4
2025:KER:678
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.38 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P1 order and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to participate in the "Thiruvathirakkali" (Higher Secondary Level - Girls) competition to be held in connection with the Kerala State Level School Kalolsavam 2024-25.
2. The petitioners had participated in the "Thiruvathirakkali" competition in the Kollam Revenue District School Kalolsavam 2024-25. Even though the petitioners had performed well, they could only secure third place because the stage was slippery. Aggrieved by the decision of the Judges, the petitioners had preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent rejected the appeal by Ext.P1 cryptic and non-speaking order. As per the Kalolsavam Manual, the Appeal Committee is to be headed by a Joint Director. However, in the case on hand, the Appeal Committee was headed by WP(C) NO. 38 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:678 the Chief Planning Officer of the Directorate of General Education, which is in violation of the Manual. In a similar matter, by the interim order in WP(C) No.45245/2024, this Court had permitted the petitioner therein to participate in the Kerala School Kalolsavam. Ext.P1 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions in the writ petition. He contended that it was by taking into account the violation of the Kalolsavam Manual, this Court by the interim order in WP(C) No.45245/2024, had permitted the petitioner therein to participate in the Kerala State School Kalolsavam. The petitioners are equally placed to the petitioner in WP(C) No.45245/2024. Therefore, the petitioners 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 WP(C) NO. 38 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:678 application. He submitted that the respondents have already filed an application to vacate the interim order in WP(C) No.45245/2024. According to the learned Government Pleader, as per the School Kalolsavam Manual, the District Level Appeal Committee is to be constituted by the Joint Director, General Education/ Deputy Director of Education, General Education Department/Deputy Director of Education of other Districts including Regional Deputy Director (HSE) and Assistant Director (VHSE) as Appeal Committee members. As per the constitution of the District Level Committee, the Joint Director of General Education, the Deputy Director of Education of the Directorate of General Education or the Deputy Director of other Districts could be appointed as a Chairman of the Appeal Committee. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that the Chief Planning Officer of the Directorate of General Education is incompetent, is untenable. He contended that as per the Stage Manager's report, there was no defect in the stage. The Judges have rightly evaluated the competition, which WP(C) NO. 38 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:678 was re-appreciated by the Appeal Committee. Both authorities have concurrently found that the petitioners are only entitled to the third place. The writ petition is meritless and is only to be dismissed.
6. The petitioners' case is that their performance was adversely affected due to the defects on the stage. Similarly, the Appeal Committee was headed by incompetent officers.
7. Indisputably, all the teams who participated in the competition performed during the same time at the very same stage. The Stage Manager's report shows that there was no defect on the stage. Moreover, the petitioners had not raised any complaint before or during the performance. It was after the results were declared, the petitioners had raised the above complaints. Similarly, I accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the Appeal Committee can comprise of the Joint Director, Deputy Director of Education or the Deputy Director of Education of other Districts as mentioned above, who all hold interchangeable posts. I do not find WP(C) NO. 38 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:678 any illegality in the constitution of the Appeal Committee.
8. The Judges of the above competition and the Appellate Authority have considered the petitioners' grievances and have concluded that they are only entitled to the third 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 WP(C) NO. 38 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:678 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 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 above WP(C) NO. 38 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:678 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].
11. On an analysis of 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 petitioners were only entitled to the third place, it is not for this Court to sit in further appeal over the above decisions and take a contrary view.
12. The Judges and the Appellate Authority 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 participants' performance in each event. Their wisdom and reason are final in such matters.
WP(C) NO. 38 OF 2025 11 2025:KER:678
13. 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. 38 OF 2025 12 2025:KER:678 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING NO. C2/4481/2024 DTD. 06.12.2024 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT