Kerala High Court
Archa Nair vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 60 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:363
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. 60 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
ARCHA NAIR
AGED 18 YEARS
D/O SMT. MILEE SANKAR,12TH STANDARD
STUDENT,ESWARAVILSOM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
NEDUVATHOOR, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT RESIDING
AT LEELALAYAM, NEELESWARAM PO, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM,
PIN - 691505
BY ADVS.
PREEJA V.P.
V.P.PRASANTH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SEORETARY TO THE
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE GENERAL CONVENER
(ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION) , KERALA
STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2024-2025 DIRECTORATE OF
GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695014
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
THE GENERAL CONVENER, KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2024-
2025,KOLLAM REVENUE DISTRICT, OFFICE OF THE DDE
KOLLAM, GOVERNMENT BHSS, THEVALLY P 0, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 691009
4 THE CHAIRMAN APPEAL COMMITTEE
KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM, HIGH SECONDARY SCHOOL
WP(C) NO. 60 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:363
WING, KOLLAM REVENUE DISTHCT, KERALA STATE SCHOOL
KALOSAVAM, OFFICE OF DDE KOLLAM, GOVERNMENT BHSS,
THEVALLY P 0, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691009
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SRI SYAMANTHAK B S
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. 60 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:363
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.60 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P3 order and to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to permit the petitioner to participate in the "Folk Dance (Girls)" competition of the Higher Secondary School Wing of the Kerala State Level School Kalolsavam 2024-25.
2. The petitioner had participated in the Folk Dance competition in the Kollam Revenue District School Kalolsavam 2024-25. The petitioner had also participated in two other individual competitions, namely, Mohiniyattam and Bharathanatyam. Due to the late arrival of the Judges, there was a mess up in the first item. While the petitioner entered on to the stage to perform the Folk Dance, her leg knocked on the floor, as the carpet was not properly fixed, and she fell down. It was due to this incident that the petitioner could not perform well. Consequently, the petitioner was only awarded the second place. Aggrieved WP(C) NO. 60 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:363 by the order passed by the Judges, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 4th respondent-Appeal Committee. As per the Kalolsavam Manual, the Appellate Committee is to be headed by a Joint Director. However, in the case on hand, the Appeal Committee was headed by the Chief Planning Officer of the Directorate of General Education, which is in violation of the Manual. In a similar matter, by Ext.P5 interim order this Court had permitted the petitioner therein to participate in the Kerala School Kalolsavam. The Appellate Authority, without considering the matter in the proper perspective, has rejected petitioner's appeal by Ext.P3 cryptic order, without any application of mind. Ext.P3 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. She contended that it was considering the violation of the Kalolsavam Manual, by Ext.P5 order this Court had permitted the petitioner WP(C) NO. 60 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:363 therein to participate in the Kerala School Kalolsavam. The petitioner is equally placed to the petitioner in Ext.P5 order. Therefore, the petitioner 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 application. He submitted that the respondents have already filed an application to vacate Ext.P5 order in the above mentioned writ petition. 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 WP(C) NO. 60 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:363 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 was re-appreciated by the Appeal Committee. Both Authorities have concurrently found that the petitioner is only entitled to second place. This writ petition is meritless and is only to be dismissed.
6. The petitioner's case is that her performance was adversely affected because she fell down due to improperly fixed stage and sustained an injury to her leg. Similarly, the Appeal Committee was headed by incompetent officers.
7. Indisputably, all the participants 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 petitioner had not raised any complaint before or during WP(C) NO. 60 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:363 the performance. It was after the results were declared, the petitioner 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 any illegality in the constitution of the Appeal Committee.
8. The Judges of the above competition and the Appellate Authority have considered the petitioner's grievances and have concluded that she is only entitled to the second 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 WP(C) NO. 60 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:363 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 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 WP(C) NO. 60 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:363 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 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 petitioner was only entitled to the second place, it is not for this Court to sit in further appeal over the above decisions and take a contrary view. WP(C) NO. 60 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:363
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.
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. 60 OF 2025 11 2025:KER:363 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 60/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON 27.11.2024 WHICH SHOWS THE INJURY SUSTAINED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE STAGE Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 28.11.2024 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL, ORDER NO: C2/4481/2024 DATED 06.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE AMENDMENT IN THE KALOLSAVAMMANUAL, GO (MS NO.125/2024 GEDN DATED 30/9/2024 Exhibit.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 24/12/2024 IN WPC NO: 45245/2024 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT