Kerala High Court
Meethika Venesh vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:125
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. 82 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MEETHIKA VENESH
AGED 16 YEARS
(MINOR) D/O. LIBA VENESH, CLASS XI,
SMHSS, CHERAI, OOLIKKARA HOUSE, CHERAI,
ERNAKULAM, REP. BY HER MOTHER LIBA VENESH,
W/O. VENESH O.R., OOLIKKARA HOUSE,
CHERAI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683514
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
RESPONDENTS:
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
APPEAL COMMITTEE FOR KERALA SCHOOL KALOTHSAVAM 2024-
2025/DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
2025:KER:125
WP(C) NO. 82 OF 2025
2
4 THE GENERAL CONVENOR - PROGRAMME COMMITTEE/ DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
DDE OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAMDISTRICT,
PIN - 682030
GP SRI B S SYAMANTHAK
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:125
WP(C) NO. 82 OF 2025
3
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 Keralanadanam (Higher Secondary School Level- Girls) competition in the Kerala State Youth Festival.
2. The petitioner had participated in the Keralanadanam competition in the Ernakulam Revenue District School Kalolsavam 2024-2025. Even though the petitioner performed well in the competition, she was awarded only the second place with 'A' grade. The petitioner's performance was adversely affected due to the defective audio system and also due to the dust that was lying on the floor, whereby she lost her balance.
2025:KER:125 WP(C) NO. 82 OF 2025 4 Although the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the third respondent, the same was rejected by Ext.P1 cryptic and non-speaking order. Ext.P1 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; Sri. George Mathew Karamanayil, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B.S.Syamanthak, 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 there is no error in the evaluation made by the Judges as well as the Authority. The Stage Manager's report shows that there was no malfunction in the audio system or dust on the floor as alleged by the petitioner. The writ petition is meritless and is only to be dismissed.
6. The petitioner's case is that her performance was adversely affected due to the malfunctioning of the audio system and the dust that was lying on the stage.
2025:KER:125 WP(C) NO. 82 OF 2025 5
7. Indisputably, all the teams that participated in the competition 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 has not raised any complaint before or during their performance. It was after 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 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 2025:KER:125 WP(C) NO. 82 OF 2025 6 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.
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) 2025:KER:125 WP(C) NO. 82 OF 2025 7 KHC 972] and Additional Director of Public 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, the marks of the rival teams and 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. Even otherwise, the purported delay in starting the competition and the defects on the stage were equally applicable to all the performing teams.
13. It is trite that judicial review under Article 2025:KER:125 WP(C) NO. 82 OF 2025 8 226 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.
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:125 WP(C) NO. 82 OF 2025 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 82/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING NO.
F1/7818/2024/HSS(26) DTD. 05.12.2024 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT IN PETITIONER'S APPEAL