Kerala High Court
Theresa Jaison vs State Of Kerala on 13 December, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 44386 OF 2024 1
2024:KER:94546
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 44386 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 THERESA JAISON
AGED 14 YEARS
D/O. JAISON, STANDARD IX, SHGHS, BHARANGANAM,
MEANACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT (MINOR)
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER LINCY THOMAS, W/O. JAISON
JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS, KOTTUKAPPALLY HOUSE,
ARUVITHURA PO, ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE, MEANACHIL
TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686122
2 JENILIA JINS
AGED 13 YEARS
D/O JINS, STANDARD VIII, SHGHS, BHARANGANAM,
MEANACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT (MINOR)
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER JIJI, W/O. JINS, AGED 38
YEARS, KALLUVARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENNAD P.O.,
MEANACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686581
BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS
SRI.V. ARJUN
SRI.V.ARUN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE FOR STATE LEVEL SCHOOL
FESTIVAL
REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
WP(C) NO. 44386 OF 2024 2
2024:KER:94546
3 KOTTAYAM DISTRICT ORGANIZING COMMITTEE FOR REVENUE
DISTRICT LEVEL SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM, COLLECTRATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
686001
4 THE APPEAL COMMITTEE
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT ORGANIZING COMMITTEE FOR REVENUE
DISTRICT LEVEL SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
KOTTAYAM, COLLECTRATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
5 ANUSREE P NAIR
AGED 15 YEARS
CAPTAIN- GROUP DANCE TEAM), STANDARD X, MOUNT
CARMEL HIGH SCHOOL, KK ROAD, KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686001
SRI.SUNILKUMAR KURIAKOSE, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.12.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 44386 OF 2024 3
2024:KER:94546
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2024 The writ petition is filed to declare that the petitioners are the first prize winners of the group dance competition (H.S.S) in the Kottayam Revenue District School Kalolsavam and permit them to participate in the State Level School Kalolsavam scheduled in January, 2025.
2. The petitioners had participated in the group dance competition of the Kottayam Revenue District School Kalolsavam held on 27.11.2024. While performing in the competition, the petitioners found the stage slippery. Two other participants had also slipped and fallen down. After the said incident, the organizing committee had laid floor mats on the stage. Yet, the stage was slippery. Then the organisers used cello-tapes and WP(C) NO. 44386 OF 2024 4 2024:KER:94546 pins to fix the stage. But, the pins had pierced the legs of the petitioners, which prevented them from performing well. Consequently, the petitioners were only given second prize. It is only due to defects on the stage that the petitioners could not perform well. Although, the petitioners had preferred Ext.P7 appeal before the 4 th respondent, the same was rejected by Ext.P8 cryptic and non-speaking order. Ext.P8 is illegal and arbitary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard: Sri.P.C.Haridas, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, 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 there were no defects in the stage. The Judges have rightly evaluated the competition and awarded the marks on the basis of the performance of the teams. The said decision was WP(C) NO. 44386 OF 2024 5 2024:KER:94546 reconfirmed by the Appellate Authority. There is no illegality in Ext.P8 order warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. The petitioners' case is that their team's performance was adversely affected due to the belated starting of the competition and the defects in the stage.
7. Indisputably, all the teams for the competition performed during the same time period and on the same stage. The Stage Manager's report shows there was no defect on the stage. Moreover, the petitioners had not raised any complaint before or during their performance. It was after the results were declared that the petitioners had raised the above grievances.
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 second prize.
9. In Rhomy Chandra Mohan v Gen. Convenor, Balakalotsavam and Yuvajanotsavam, WP(C) NO. 44386 OF 2024 6 2024:KER:94546 [(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 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 WP(C) NO. 44386 OF 2024 7 2024:KER:94546 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 others [2022 (5) KHC 473].
11. On analysing the facts and the materials on record, especially on considering 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 second prize, 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 teams and the Stage Manager's report WP(C) NO. 44386 OF 2024 8 2024:KER:94546 and have rejected the appeal by the impugned order.
13. 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.
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.
15. 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 WP(C) NO. 44386 OF 2024 9 2024:KER:94546 review.
The writ petition is devoid of any merits and is consequentially dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS JUDGE NAB WP(C) NO. 44386 OF 2024 10 2024:KER:94546 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44386/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 08-01- 2024 FOR THE 62ND KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2023-24 ISSUED TO ONE OF THE TEAM MEMBER, AMRITHA SANTHOSH Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 08-01- 2024 FOR THE 62ND KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2023-24 ISSUED TO ANOTHER TEAM MEMBER, ANJANAKRISHNA B Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY THE CERTIFICATE DATED 06-01- 2023 FOR THE 61ST KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2022-23 ISSUED TO AMRITHA SANTHOSH Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 06-01- 2023 4 THE 61ST KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2022-23 ISSUED TO ANJANAKRISHNA B Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT ISSUED FOR THE 33RD KOTTAYAM REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2022 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT ISSUED FOR THE 33RD KOTTAYAM REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2022 TO THE TEAM MEMBER VAISHNAVI SUJITH Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER ON BEHALF OF HER TEAM Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/12/2024 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER