Kerala High Court
Aniha Mohan vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:124
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. 29 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 ANIHA MOHAN
AGED 13 YEARS
(MINOR) D/O. MOHAN, CLASS VIII,A.V.G.H.S, THAZHAVA,
ANILA NIVAS, KOTTAPPURAM, SOORANAD NORTH, ANAYADI P.O.,
KOLLAM, REP. BY HER FATHER SRI. MOHAN, S/O. KESAVAN T.,
ANILA NIVAS, KOTTAPPURAM, SOORANAD NORTH, ANAYADI P.O.,
KOLLAM, PIN - 690561
2 AADITHYA
AGED 15 YEARS
D/O. ANILKUMAR RAJAN, (MINOR) CLASS X, A.V.G.H.S,
THAZHAVA, SAIKRIPA, SRP MARKET P.O., THAZHAVA, KOLLAM,
REP. BY HER FATHER ANILKUMAR RAJAN S/O. RAJAN,
BALAKRISHNAN, SAIKRIPA, S.R.P MARKET P.O., THAZHAVA,
KOLLAM, PIN - 690539
3 SREEGOURI J
AGED 13 YEARS
(MINOR) D/O. SREELAL S., CLASS VIII, A.V.G.H.S,
THAZHAVA, VAZHOOTHARAYIL, MANAPPALLY P.O., N.E.,
THAZAVA, KOLLAM, REP. BY HER FATHER SREELAL S.,
S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN,VAZHOOTHARAYIL, MANAPPALLY P.O.,
N.E., THAZAVA, KOLLAM, PIN - 690574
4 S.V. NIVEDITHA
AGED 13 YEARS
(MINOR) D/O. VINITHA U., CLASS VIII, A.V.G.H.S,
THAZHAVA, NALUKANDATHIL, S.R.P. MARKET P.O., THAZHAVA,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, REP. BY HER MOTHER VINITHA U., D/O.
KRISHNA KUTTY, NALUKANDATHIL, S.R.P MARKET P.O,
THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN - 690539
5 HRITHIKA ANOOP
AGED 13 YEARS
(MINOR) D/O. SUNITHA KUMARI R., CLASS VIII, A.V.G.H.S,
THAZHAVA, NIRMALYAM, SW THAZHAVA, THAZHAVA P.O,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. REP. BY HER MOTHER SUNITHA
KUMARI.R., D/O RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI.K, NIRMALYAM, SW
THAZHAVA, THAZHAVA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN -
690523
2025:KER:124
WP(C) NO. 29 OF 2025
2
6 NIVEDYA RAJ V
AGED 13 YEARS
(MINOR) D/O. RAJAN PILLAI, CLASS VIII, A.V.G.H.S,
THAZHAVA, MOHANA BHAVANAM, MANAPPALLY NORTH PAVUMBA,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, REP. BY HER FATHER RAJAN
PILLAI, S/O. KUTTTAN PILLAII MOHANA BHAVANAM,
MANAPPALLY NORTH PAVUMBA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM,, PIN
- 690574
7 DEVANANDANA S
AGED 13 YEARS
(MINOR) D/O. SREEDEVI G., CLASS VIII, A.V.G.H.S,
THAZHAVA, PV SOUTH, EDAKKULANGARA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY,
KOLLAM, REP. BY HER MOTHER SREEDEVI G., D/O. GEETHA, PV
SOUTH, EDAKKULANGARA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN
- 690523
8 DHWANI A.S
AGED 13 YEARS
(MINOR) D/O SATHEESH S., CLASS VIII, A.V.G.H.S,
THAZHAVA, THATHWAMASI, PV SOUTH, EDAKKULANGARA P.O.,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, REP. BY HER FATHER SATHEESH S.,
S/O. SARGADHARAN, THATHWAMASI, PV SOUTH,
EDAKKULANGARAP.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN - 690523
9 SWALIHA SAMAD
AGED 13 YEARS
(MINOR) D/O. ABDUL SAMAD, CLASS VIII, A.V.G.H.S,
THAZHAVA, A.S. MANZIL, SRP MARKET P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY,
KOLLAM, REP. BY HER FATHER ABDUL SAMAD, S/O. IBRAHIM
KUNJU, A.S. MANZIL, SRP MARKET P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY,
KOLLAM, PIN - 690539
0 SONA A
AGED 14 YEARS
(MINOR) D/O. SHAHEEDA S., CLASS IX, A.V.G.H.S,
THAZHAVA, SONA MANZIL, PV SOUTH, EDAKKULANGARA P.O.,
KOLLAM, REP. BY HER MOTHER SHAHEEDA S., D/O. ABBAS,
SONA MANZIL, PV SOUTH, EDAKKULANGARA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN
- 690523
BY ADVS.
GEORGE MATHEW
BIJILY JOSEPH
SUNIL KUMAR A.G
MATHEW K.T.
GEORGE K.V.
BOBY MATHEW
2025:KER:124
WP(C) NO. 29 OF 2025
3
STEPHY K REGI
MEDHA B.S.
JOHN ZACHARIAH DOMINIC
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2023 -2024, 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/ DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
DDE OFFICE, THEVALLY POST, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN -
691009
SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE- GOVERNMENT NPLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:124
WP(C) NO. 29 OF 2025
4
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P1 order and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to participate in the Thiruvathirakali (Girls, High School Level) competition to be held in connection with the State Youth Festival.
2. The petitioners had participated in the Thiruvathirakali competition in the Kollam Revenue District School Kalolsavam 2024-2025. Even though the petitioners had performed well in the competition, they were awarded only third place with 'A' grade. The petitioners could not perform well since there were pins lying on the carpet, and a pin pierced on the leg of one of the petitioners, which adversely affected their performance. Although the petitioners had preferred an appeal before the third respondent, the same was 2025:KER:124 WP(C) NO. 29 OF 2025 5 rejected by Ext.P1 order. Ext.P1 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; Sri. George Mathew Karamanayil, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Vidya 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 as alleged by the petitioners. The petitioners' team had secured only the third prize since they only secured 259.5 marks. The first prize team secured 261 marks. There is no error in the decisions taken by the Original Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
6. The petitioners' case is that their team's performance was adversely affected because a pin that was allegedly lying on the carpet had pierced on the leg 2025:KER:124 WP(C) NO. 29 OF 2025 6 of one of the petitioners.
7. The Stage Manager's report shows that there was no defect in 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 third prize.
9. 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 they have different perceptions. It is not possible to have any absolute standards or absolute judges who react alike in all situations. It is 2025:KER:124 WP(C) NO. 29 OF 2025 7 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.
10. 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 2025:KER:124 WP(C) NO. 29 OF 2025 8 Institutions, DPI Office v. Anagha K and others [2022 (5) KHC 473].
11. It is discernible that the Appellate Authority has considered the Judges' observations, and awarded the marks on the basis of 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.
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 decision, which goes to its roots, may vitiate the decision 2025:KER:124 WP(C) NO. 29 OF 2025 9 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 mtk/6.01.25 2025:KER:124 WP(C) NO. 29 OF 2025 10 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING NO. C2/4481/2024 DTD. 05.12.2023 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT