Kerala High Court
Aina Anna vs State Of Kerala on 2 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
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 42748 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
AINA ANNA
AGED 16 YEARS
D/O SUBHA THOMAS, ALAKKAPALLY HOUSE, FLAT NO SFC
NUCLEAR HOMES APARTMENTS, KURIACHIRA P O , GOSAIKUNNU,
THRISSUR; REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN CUM MOTHER, SUBHA
THOMAS, AGED 44, D/O M. THOMAS, ALAKKAPALLY HOUSE, FLAT
NO SFC NUCLEAR HOMES APARTMENTS, KURIACHIRA P Ο ,
GOSAIKUNNU, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680006
BY ADV P.T.SHEEJISH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE GENERAL CONVENER
(DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION) THRISSUR REVENUE
DISTRICT SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL 2024, OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR, THRISSUR
DISTRICT,, PIN - 680001
3 THE GENERAL CONVENER
63RD KERALA STATE SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL PROGRAMME
COMMITTEE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
THRISSUR, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001
5 APPEAL COMMITTEE
2024:KER:90446
WP(C) NO. 42748 OF 2024
2
REPRESENTED BY IT'S CHAIRMAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT
KALOLSAVAM 2024, REVENUE DISTRICT, THRISSUR,, PIN
- 680001
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.12.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:90446
WP(C) NO. 42748 OF 2024
3
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2024
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 order and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the Kuchipudi (Girls) competition in the 62nd Kerala State School Kalolsavam for the year 2024-2025.
2.The petitioner's case is that, she had participated in Kuchipudi (Girls) event in Thrissur East Sub District School Kalolsavam for the year 2024 in HSS General Section. The petitioner was hopeful of securing the first prize in this year's school kalolsavam and she had done lot of hardwork for the event. Even though she participated in the said event, she was placed in the second place as per Ext.P1 score sheet. The petitioner could not participate well since there was gross mis-management in organizing the event. Even though the event was scheduled at 5.45 p.m, the 2024:KER:90446 WP(C) NO. 42748 OF 2024 4 same commenced only at 11.39 p.m. This unwarranted re-scheduling caused immense inconvenience to the petitioner and other participants. The petitioner was suffering from low WPC and platelet count and she was severely affected by the delay. Therefore, this led to her getting the second prize. Even though she preferred an appeal before the 5th respondent, the same was dismissed by Ext.P3 cryptic order. Ext.P3 is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, Ext.P3 may be set aside.
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 5th respondent has perfunctorily dismissed the appeal without adverting to any of the contentions raised in the appeal. Therefore, Ext.P3 order may be quashed.
5. The learned Government Pleader opposed 2024:KER:90446 WP(C) NO. 42748 OF 2024 5 the writ petition. She submitted that the Judges had rightly judged the competition and awarded first place to the better-performing team. The Appellate Authority confirmed the Judges' decision after considering the materials and viewing the video of the competition. She 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.P3 order warranting inference by this Court to exercise its plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed.
6. The judges of the above competition and the Appellate Authority have considered the petitioner's grievance and concluded that she is only entitled to the second prize.
7. In Rhomy Chandra Mohan v Gen. Convenor, Balakalotsavam and Yuvajanotsavam, [(1992) 1 KLJ 515] this Court has held as follows:
2024:KER:90446 WP(C) NO. 42748 OF 2024 6 "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 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 2024:KER:90446 WP(C) NO. 42748 OF 2024 7 enquiry regarding their qualifications for appointment as judges.
8. This Court has repeatedly reiterated the above exposition of the law 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].
9. On analysing the facts and the materials on record, especially considering that the Experts in the field of art, namely the Judges of the competition and the Appellate Authority, have concurrently concluded that the petitioner was only entitled to the 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 discernible that the Appellate Authority has considered the judges' observations and the marks of the participants, viewed the video of the event, and 2024:KER:90446 WP(C) NO. 42748 OF 2024 8 then rejected the appeal by the impugned order.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. In the instant case, this Court does not find any patent illegality or apparent error in the impugned order that warrants the exercise of the power of judicial review.
2024:KER:90446 WP(C) NO. 42748 OF 2024 9 The writ petition is devoid of any merits and is consequentially dismissed.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm2/12/2024 2024:KER:90446 WP(C) NO. 42748 OF 2024 10 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42748/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET RESULT PUBLISHED FOR THE EVENT OF KUCHUPPUDI (GIRLS) IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF KERALA DISTRICT KALOTSAVAM 2024-2025 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE EVENT PUBLISHED FOR THE EVENT OF KUCHUPPUDI (GIRLS) IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF KERALA DISTRICT KALOTSAVAM 2024-2025 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 22.11.2024