Kerala High Court
Afshira Ashraf vs State Of Kerala on 3 December, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 42860 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
AFSHIRA ASHRAF
AGED 17 YEARS
STUDENT ,V.R.A.M.H.S. SCHOOL, TAIKKAD P.O, CHAVAKKAD,
THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN AND MOTHER ,SEFIYA
P.V. AGED 49 YEARS, W/O. ASHRAF, KARUPPAMVEETIL (H),
BRAHMAKULAM, TAIKKAD.P.O, CHAAKKAD, THRISSUR, PIN -
680104
BY ADVS.
S.KRISHNAMOORTHY
SNEHA ROSE
P.S.ARUNA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
O/OTHE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM, PIN
- 695001
3 THE GENERAL CONVENOR
(DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION) THRISSUR REVENUE
DISTRICT LEVEL KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2024 -2025,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
4 THE CHAIRMAN
APPEAL COMMITTEE/DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER CHAVAKKAD,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680506
5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
O/O THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680506
2024:KER:90846
WP(C) NO. 42860 OF 2024
2
SR.PP SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.12.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:90846
WP(C) NO. 42860 OF 2024
3
Dated this the 3 rd
day of December, 2024
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P2 order and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner and her team to participate in the Thrissur District Youth Festival in the 'Oppana' competition to be held on 3.12.2024..
2. The petitioner's case is that she and her team had participated in the Chavakkad Sub-District Youth Festival, which was held on 20.11.2024. The petitioner was the captain of the team. The petitioner and her team had performed well without any defects and all the audience applauded their performance. The opinion of the audience was that it was the petitioner's team that had to get the first prize. However, due to technical glitches on the stage, that it is the blinking of the lights and large number of night flies around the lights, the petitioner and her team got disturbed. It 2024:KER:90846 WP(C) NO. 42860 OF 2024 4 was in the said background that the petitioner's team could not perform well. The petitioner's team was ranked second. Aggrieved by the decision of the judges, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the 4th respondent. However, the 4th respondent, by impugned Ext.P2 order, perfunctorily rejected the appeal. Ext.P2 is patently wrong and erroneous. The 4th respondent has not adverted to any of the contentions raised in the memorandum of appeal. The petitioner is certain that if her team is granted an opportunity to participate in the Thrissur District Youth Festival, they will get the first prize. Therefore, the writ petition may be allowed by quashing Ext.P2 order
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 contended that the 4th respondent was not afforded 2024:KER:90846 WP(C) NO. 42860 OF 2024 5 an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and has not adverted to any of the contentions raised in the appeal. Therefore, Ext.P2 order may be quashed.
5. The learned Government Pleader opposed the writ petition. He made available the score sheet of the Judges of the competition and contended that the petitioner's team was only ranked third. The team with registration No. 45610 was placed first and the teams with registration Nos.45444 and 43619 were jointly ranked second. Therefore, even if the petitioner's contentions are accepted, still the petitioner cannot aspire to participate in the District Youth Festival. The Appellate Authority has confirmed the Judges' decision after considering the materials and viewing the video of the competition. He contended that, as per the competition rules, all the arrangements for each event, including the light and sound, have to be arranged by the participating team. There is no illegality in Ext.P2 2024:KER:90846 WP(C) NO. 42860 OF 2024 6 order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed.
6. The petitioner's contention is that she and her team had performed well in the 'Oppana' event. It is only due to technical snag and the night flies on the stage that the petitioner's team could not perform well, otherwise, the petitioner's team would have secured the first prize. However, the judges did not consider the above crucial aspects, instead awarded the petitioner's team the third place. This erroneous decision was reconfirmed by the fourth respondent by the cryptic impugned order.
7. Undisputedly, the judges of the event and the Appellate Authority have considered the petitioner's grievance and concluded that the teams with registration Nos.45610, 45444 and 43619 performed 2024:KER:90846 WP(C) NO. 42860 OF 2024 7 better than the petitioner's team.
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 sit in appeal over such awards in a proceeding under Article 2024:KER:90846 WP(C) NO. 42860 OF 2024 8 226 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.
9. This Court has repeatedly reiterated the above exposition of the law in a plethora of judgments, [Read 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 that the Experts in the field of art, namely the Judges of the event and the Appellate Authority, have concurrently concluded that the 4th respondent's team was the first prize winner, 2024:KER:90846 WP(C) NO. 42860 OF 2024 9 then it is not for this Court to sit in further appeal over the above decisions and take a contrary view. It is apparent that the Appellate Authority has considered the judges' observations and the marks of the rival teams, viewed the video of the event, and then rejected the appeal.
11. The Judges and Appellate Authorities of the Kalolsavam, function according to the competition regulations. They cannot be equated with judicial or quasi-judicial functionaries. Their function is confined to judging the competitions based on the participant's performance in each event. Their wisdom and reason 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 2024:KER:90846 WP(C) NO. 42860 OF 2024 10 decision-making process.
13. In the instant case, this Court does not find any such patent illegality or apparent error warranting 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 rmm3/12/2024 2024:KER:90846 WP(C) NO. 42860 OF 2024 11 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42860/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AWARDED TO ONE OF THE TEAMMATES OF THE PETITIONER'S TEAM Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER NO.
DEOCKD/3950/2024-A3 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 27.11.2024 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER NO.DEOCKD/3950/2024-A3 DATED 27.11.2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT