Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sriya Sreejith K P vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2025

Author: V.G.Arun

Bench: V.G.Arun

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947

                    WP(C) NO. 44388 OF 2025

PETITIONER:
          SRIYA SREEJITH K P
          AGED 14 YEARS
          D/O SREEJITH K P RESIDING AT SATRIYA 64/1371,
          POONADATH THAZAM ROAD, ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE
          DISTRICT, PIN- 673 006 REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT
          FRIEND AND GUARDIAN SREEJITH K P, AGED 50 YEARS,
          S/O KUNHIKRISHNAN K P, RESIDING AT SATRIYA
          64/1371, POONADATH THAZAM ROAD, ERANHIPALAM P.O.,
          KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,


         BY ADVS.
         SHRI.AHAMMAD SACHIN K.
         SHRI.MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.
         SMT.NAYANA VARGHESE
         SMT.RIA VARGHESE
         SHRI.JERRY PETER




RESPONDENTS:

    1    STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
         EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO. 206, SECOND FLOOR,
         SOUTH SANDWICH BLOCK, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GENERAL.P.O.,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
 WP(C).No.44388/2025
                                    2



                                                             2024:KER:88170



     2       THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
             ROOM NO. 206, SECOND FLOOR, SOUTH SANDWICH BLOCK,
             GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
             GENERAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
             695001

     3       THE CHAIRMAN
             APPEAL COMMITTEE OF SUB-DISTRICT SCHOOL
             KALOLSAVAM KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673014



OTHER PRESENT:

             SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP.


      THIS    WRIT      PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME      UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON      25.11.2025,   THE   COURT   ON   THE     SAME    DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.44388/2025
                                     3



                                                          2024:KER:88170



                                V.G.ARUN, J
                      = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                          W.P.(C).No.44388 of 2025
                  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
     Dated        Dated this the 25th day of November, 2024y of
                              November, 2024


                               JUDGMENT

The Kathaprasangam team captained by the petitioner participated in the Kozhikode Sub-District School Kalolsavam, and secured A Grade. Dissatisfied with the result, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which the appeal committee rejected as per Ext.P2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the performance of the petitioner's team was affected by the technical issues with the sound system. In spite of the said ground being urged in the appeal, Ext.P2 order was passed without adverting to that issue.

3. Learned Government Pleader contended that, innumerable number of appeals are filed after each competition WP(C).No.44388/2025 4 2024:KER:88170 item and members of the appeal committee being Government officials, have other duties. They are bestowed with the duties in connection with the election to the local bodies in the State and the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of the electoral roll. Therefore, failure to pass a detailed order cannot be taken as a ground for interfering with the decision.

4. A perusal of the order passed by the appeal committee shows that the order was passed after verifying the State Manager's report and on being convinced that there were no issues as alleged in the appeal during the performance of the petitioner's team. The orders passed by a committee of this nature cannot be expected to be having the same standard as that of judicial or quasi judicial bodies. Further, as held by this Court in Rhomy Chandra Mohan v. General Convenor, [1992 KHC 211], this Court cannot sit in appeals over such orders in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also not within the province of this Court to re- assess the merits or demerits of candidates, whose WP(C).No.44388/2025 5 2024:KER:88170 performance have been evaluated by competent judges. In this context it will be worthwhile to extract the following erudite exposition in Sweety v. State of Kerala [1994 KHC 216];

"5. While dealing with these cases it came to my notice that there are functionaries like 'Judges', 'Appeal Committee', etc. functioning under the rules framed for the conduct of competitions. Those bodies cannot be equated with ordinary judicial or quasi judicial bodies. As pointed out earlier, they are purely internal bodies of the educational institutions intended to subserve discipline among students in situations where disputes are likely to occur. The exercise of their functions is completely confined to the field of Youth Festival where the discipline is absolutely necessary for the proper conduct of different competitions among the students. The decisions will have to be taken in certain cases on the spot and I fail to see how such decisions can be challenged in these proceedings. The assessment of performance of the participants are made by the 'judges'. Their wisdom and reason are final in such internal matters of educational institutions. However as an abundant caution the appeals are provided before the 'appeal committee' against the decision of the 'Judges'. The decision of the 'appeal committee' shall be accepted as conclusive and final by the students and all others. That is purely a matter of observance of internal discipline. This WP(C).No.44388/2025 6 2024:KER:88170 court, according to me, will not be justified in interfering with such assessment of performance made by the appeal committee in their discretionary powers."

5. Being in agreement with the above precedents and the petitioner having failed to make out any grossly vitiating circumstance in the evaluation of the team's performance, the writ petition can only be dismissed.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

sd/-

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE sj WP(C).No.44388/2025 7 2024:KER:88170 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 44388 OF 2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

                      A4/1379/2024(40)    DATED     21.11.2025
                      ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3            TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
                      KALOLSAVAM MANUAL