Kerala High Court
Bhama Renjith (Minor) Represented By ... vs The Director General Of Education on 20 December, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2024:KER:97135
WP(C) NO. 45313 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA,
1946
WP(C) NO. 45313 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
BHAMA RENJITH (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MRS AMBIKA K O
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O RENJITH KALLUVILLA VEEDU KUNNICODE POST
KUNNICODE VILAKKUDY PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 691508
BY ADVS.
ARUN CHANDRAN
HARIMOHAN
AMRITA ARUN
ASWATHY S MENON
HANA KARNOLIA MADONA CYRIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, JAGATHI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695014
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
KOLLAM - ELAMBALLOOR ROAD, THEVALLY NAGAR, PALACE
NAGAR, THEVALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691009
3 THE APPELLATE COMMITTEE
[CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA SCHOOL YOUTH
FESTIVAL MANUAL] REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
2024:KER:97135
WP(C) NO. 45313 OF 2024
2
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
KOLLAM - ELAMBALLOOR ROAD, THEVALLY NAGAR, PALACE
NAGAR, THEVALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691009
GP SMT DEEPA NARAYANAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.12.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:97135
WP(C) NO. 45313 OF 2024
3
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2024
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P2 order and permit the petitioner and her team to participate in the "Kadhaprasangam'' competition in the Kerala State Kalolsavam 2024-25 scheduled from 04.01.2025 to 08.01.2025.
2. The petitioner and her team had participated in the "Kadhaprasangam'' competition in the Kollam Revenue District Level Kalolsavam. Due to the technical snags in the audio system, the petitioner's team could not perform well. All through out the event, the petitioner had to hold the microphone for narrating the story. Consequently, the petitioner's team was awarded only the second prize. Even though the petitioner had complained about the above defects to the Judges, they did not accept the petitioner's version.
2024:KER:97135 WP(C) NO. 45313 OF 2024 4 Although the petitioner had filed Ext.P1 appeal before the 3rd respondent, the same was rejected by Ext.P2 cryptic order without any application of mind. Ext.P2 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard: Sri. Arun Chandran, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Deepa Narayana, the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in the writ petition.
5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that as per the Stage Manager's report there were no technical snags in the audio system. The first prize winner had secured 269 marks and the petitioner's team had secured 265 marks, that is a difference of four marks. The Judges have rightly evaluated the competition and recorded the marks on the basis of the performance of the teams. The said decision has been reconfirmed by the Appellate Authority as per Ext.P2 order. There is no illegality in Ext.P2 order warranting 2024:KER:97135 WP(C) NO. 45313 OF 2024 5 interference by this Court. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
6. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner's performance was affected due to technical snags in the audio system.
7. Undisputedly, all the teams had performed with the very same audio system. The Stage Manager's report shows that there were no defects in the audio system. Moreover, the petitioner had not raised the said complaint before or during the performance. It is only after the results were declared that the petitioner raised the above complaint.
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 2024:KER:97135 WP(C) NO. 45313 OF 2024 6 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.
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 2024:KER:97135 WP(C) NO. 45313 OF 2024 7 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 petitioner's team was only entitled to second place, 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, the marks of the rival teams and the stage Manager's report, 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 2024:KER:97135 WP(C) NO. 45313 OF 2024 8 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 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 rmm20/12/2024 2024:KER:97135 WP(C) NO. 45313 OF 2024 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 45313/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE APPEAL COMMITTEE ON 28.11.2024 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPEAL BEARING NO. C2/4481/2024 DATED 06.12.2024.