Kerala High Court
Nandana Vinesh R vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 283 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:340
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. 283 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 NANDANA VINESH R
AGED 15 YEARS
(MINOR), D/O. VINESH G., CLASS X H, GOVERNMENT GHS,
KARUNAGAPALLY, RADHAMADHAVAM, PUNNAKULAM,
PUTHIYKAVU, K.S. PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, REP. BY HER FATHER VINESH G., S/O
GOPINATHAN PILLAI, RADHAMADHAVAM PUNNAKULAM,
PUTHIYKAVU, K.S. PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 690544
2 GOURI SREEKUMAR
AGED 15 YEARS
(MINOR) D/O. SREEKUMAR S., CLASS X H, GOVERNMENT
GHS, KARUNAGAPALLY, KUTTIYILVADAKKATHIL, MUZHANGODI,
THODIYOOR P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY KOLLAM, REP. BY HER
FATHER SREEKUMAR S., S/O. SANKARA PILLAI
KUTTIYILVADAKKATHIL, MUZHANGODI, THODIYOOR P.O.,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690523
3 AVANTHIKA GIRISH
AGED 15 YEARS
(MINOR) D/O. GIREESH KUMAR S., CLASS X H, GOVERNMENT
GHS, KARUNAGAPALLY, GOURI SANKARAM, SVM P.O.,
KOZHIKODE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. REP. BY HER FATHER
SADASIVAN S., GOURI SANKARAM, SVM P.O., KOZHIKODE,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690573
4 MAHALEKSHMI A
AGED 16 YEARS
(MINOR) D/O. KRISHNA KUMAR, (MINOR), CLASS X C,
GOVERNMENT GHS, KARUNAGAPALLY, PRANAVAM, ADINADU
NORTH P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, REP. BY HER FATHER
KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O. SATHEESH, PRANAVAM, ADINADU
NORTH P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690542
WP(C) NO. 283 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:340
5 SREELEKSHMI R
AGED 15 YEARS
(MINOR) D/O. SUDHI S., CLASS X F, GOVERNMENT GHS,
KARUNAGAPALLY, EDAYILA VEEDU MUZHANGODI THODIYOOR
P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. REP. BY HER FATHER
SUDHI S., S/O SIVADASAN, EDAYILA VEEDU, MUZHANGODI,
THODIYOOR P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690523
6 POOJA K
AGED 14 YEARS
(MINOR), D/O KRISHNAKUMAR S., CLASS IX I, GOVERNMENT
GHS, KARUNAGAPALLY, MAZHAVILLU, THEKKETHARA, AYALUR
P.O., PALAKKAD, REP. BY HER FATHER KRISHNAKUMAR S.,
S/O SANKU KURUKKAL, MAZHAVILLU, THEKKETHARA, AYALUR
P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678510
7 SWATHI PRABHAKARAN
AGED 15 YEARS
(MINOR) D/O. M. PRABHAKARAN, CLASS X J, GOVERNMENT
GHS, KARUNAGAPALLY, KRISHNA KRIPA, VADAKKUMTHALA
(EAST), VADAKKUMTHALA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM,
REP. BY HER FATHER M. PRABHAKARAN, S/O M. MUKUNDAN,
KRISHNA KRIPA, VADAKKUMTHALA (EAST),VADAKKUMTHALA
P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690536
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SRI.BIJILY JOSEPH
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SRI.MATHEW K.T.
SRI.GEORGE K.V.
SRI.BOBY MATHEW
SRI.STEPHY K REGI
SRI.ADITHYA BENZEER
SMT.MEDHA B.S.
SRI.JOHN ZACHARIAH DOMINIC
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
WP(C) NO. 283 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:340
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
SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP
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. 283 OF 2025 4
2025:KER:340
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 06th day of January, 2025 The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P2 order and permit the petitioners to participate in the Group Dance (High School Level-Girls) competition in the Kerala State School Youth Festival 2024-2025.
2. The petitioners had participated in the Group Dance competition in the Kollam Revenue District School Kalolsavam. Although the petitioners had performed well in the competition, because the curtain on the stage was lowered on three occasions and due the defective audio system, the petitioners could not secure the 1st prize. Eventhough, the petitioners had preferred Ext.P1 appeal before the 3rd respondent, the same was dismissed by Ext.P2 cryptic order, without any application of mind. Ext.P2 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
WP(C) NO. 283 OF 2025 5
2025:KER:340
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.
5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that as per the Stage Manager's report and also as per the recorded video, there were no defects in the audio system and the curtain was not lowered during the petitioners' performance. The Judges as well as the Appellate Authority have appreciated the matter in its right perspective and rightly arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners were not entitled to the first prize. There is no error in the said judgment. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
6. The petitioners' case is that their performance was adversely affected due to the lowering of the curtain during their performance and also due to the defective audio system.
7. On an appreciation of the materials on record, especially the Stage Manager's report, it is evident WP(C) NO. 283 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:340 that the curtain was not lowered during the petitioners performance and also there was no defect in the audio system. These aspects were taken note by the Judges and re-appreciated by the Appellate Authority. It is after considering these aspects that the best performing team was awarded the first prize.
8. 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 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 WP(C) NO. 283 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:340 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."
9. 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 others [2022 (5) KHC 473].
10. On analysing 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 WP(C) NO. 283 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:340 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. It is discernible that the Appellate Authority has considered the Judges' observations, the marks of the rival teams and the Stage Manager's report and have rejected the appeal by the impugned order.
12. 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 reason are final in such matters. Even otherwise, the purported delay in starting the competition and the defects on the stage were equally applicable to all the performing teams.
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 WP(C) NO. 283 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:340 decision, which goes to its roots, may vitiate the decision- making process.
14. 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 NAB WP(C) NO. 283 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:340 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 283/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DTD. 30.11.2024 SUBMITTED TO 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING NO. C2/4481/2024 DTD. 05.12.2024 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT