Kerala High Court
Pavithra Manoj vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 57 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:334
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. 57 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
PAVITHRA MANOJ
AGED 15 YEARS
(MINOR) D/O. SHAIJI MANOJ, CLASS X, HOLY FAMILY HS
ANGAMALY, EDAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KIDANGOOR P.O., ANGAMALY,
ERNAKULAM, REP. BY HER MOTHER SHAIJI MANOJ, W/O.
MANOJ, EDAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KIDANGOOR P.O, ANGAMALY, PIN
- 683572
BY ADVS.
GEORGE MATHEW
BIJILY JOSEPH
SUNIL KUMAR A.G
MATHEW K.T.
GEORGE K.V.
BOBY MATHEW
STEPHY K REGI
ADITHYA BENZEER
MEDHA B.S.
JOHN ZACHARIAH DOMINIC
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2024-2025, REP. BY ITS
GENERAL CO-ORDINATOR/DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695001
3 THE CHAIRMAN
WP(C) NO. 57 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:334
APPEAL COMMITTEE FOR KERALA SCHOOL KALOTHSAVAM 2024-
2025/DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DEE OFFICE,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689101
4 THE GENERAL CONVENOR - PROGRAMME COMMITTEE/ DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
DDE OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAMDISTRICT, PIN - 682030
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 57 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:334
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.57 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
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 petitioner to participate in the "Bharathanatyam" competition (High School Level- Girls) to be held in connection with the Kerala State School Youth Festival.
2. The petitioner had participated in the Bharathanatyam competition in the Ernakulam Revenue District School Kalolsavam. Even though the petitioner had performed well, she was only awarded second place. The first place winner had secured four marks more than the petitioner. The petitioner could not perform well since the floor was uneven. Although the petitioner pointed out the said defects in the appeal filed before the 3 rd respondent, the 3rd respondent had perfunctorily rejected the appeal by Ext.P1 order. Ext.P1 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
WP(C) NO. 57 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:334
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.
5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that as per the Stage Manager's report, there were no defects in the stage. Moreover, the petitioner has secured four marks lesser than the first place winner. The Judges as well as the Appellate Authority have rightly considered all the contentions raised by the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. There is no illegality in Ext.P1 order warranting this Court's interference. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
6. The petitioner's case is that her performance was adversely affected due to the uneven floor.
7. Indisputably, all the participants in the competition had 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 petitioner had not raised any complaint before or during her performance. It was after WP(C) NO. 57 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:334 the results were declared that the petitioner had raised the above grievances.
8. The Judges of the above competition and the Appellate Authority have considered the petitioner's grievances and have concluded that she was only entitled to the second place.
9. In Rhomy Chandra Mohan v Gen. Convenor, Balakalotsavam and Yuvajanotsavam, [(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 wellknown 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 WP(C) NO. 57 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:334 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 the Rules for the purpose."
10. This Court has repeatedly reiterated the principles in a plethora of judgments. [Read the judgments of WP(C) NO. 57 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:334 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 an 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 petitioner was only entitled to the second place, 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 participants and the Stage Manager's report and have rejected the petitioner's appeal by the impugned order.
13. The Judges and the Appellate Authority of the Kalolsavam judged 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 WP(C) NO. 57 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:334 judging the competition based on the participants' 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 participants.
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 review. The writ petition is devoid of any merits and is consequentially dismissed.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rkc/06.01.25 WP(C) NO. 57 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:334 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 57/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING NO.
F1/7818/2024/HS(29) DTD. 05.12.2024 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT IN PETITIONER'S APPEAL