Kerala High Court
Dilna M.N, (Minor) vs The General Convenor 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. 42729 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
DILNA M.N, (MINOR)
AGED 15 YEARS
STANDARD X, H D P S H S SCHOOL , EDATHIRINJI, THRISSUR
DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND GUARDIAN NIKHIL
M.C, MUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDATHIRINJI .P.O, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680122
BY ADVS.
MAHESH V.MENON
RAJITHA V.K
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE GENERAL CONVENOR
KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM HIGH SCHOOL WING THRISSUR
REVENUE DISTRICT, KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2024-25(THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR), AYYANTOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 THE GENERAL CONVENOR
KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM HIGH SCHOOL WING IRINJALAKUDA
SUB DISTRICT, KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2024-25(THE
DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA ),
IRINJALAKUDA , THRISSUR, PIN - 680101
3 THE CHAIRMAN APPEAL COMMITTEE
KERALASCHOOL KALOLSAVAM HIGH SCHOOL WING IRINJALAKUDA
SUB DISTRICT, KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2024-25, OFFICE
OF DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA ,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680121
4 SREE KRISHNA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL,THE 1ST PRIZE WINNER, CHAVITTU
NADAKAM TEAM GROUPANANDAPURAM , IRINJALAKUDA SUB
DISTRICT, KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2024-25,
ANANDAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680305
2024:KER:90447
WP(C) NO. 42729 OF 2024
2
SR.PP. SMT. DEEPA NARAYAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.12.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:90447
WP(C) NO. 42729 OF 2024
3
Dated this the 2 nd
day of December, 2024
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P2 order passed by the third respondent and permit the petitioner and her group to participate in the Thrissur Revenue District School Kalolsavam.
2. The petitioner's case is that she and her group had participated in the Chavittu Nadakam competition in Thrissur Revenue District School Kalolsavam 2024-2025. However, the 4th respondent group was awarded the first prize, and the petitioner's group was awarded the second prize. While the petitioner's group was performing, the song was abruptly interrupted due to a technical snag in the sound system, which was a mistake on the part of the organising committee. Although the petitioner apprised 2024:KER:90447 WP(C) NO. 42729 OF 2024 4 the organising committee of this matter, they were not ready to hear the petitioner. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P1 appeal before the third respondent. Yet, the 3rd respondent dismissed Ext.P1 appeal by Ext.P2 cryptic order. Ext.P2 is illegal and arbitrary and is passed without any application of mind. The appellate authority has not appreciated the facts or evaluated the video of the event. The petitioner believes that her group can perform well in the Revenue District School Kalolsavam. Hence, the writ petition may be allowed.
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 3rd respondent has perfunctorily dismissed Ext.P1 appeal without adverting to any of the 2024:KER:90447 WP(C) NO. 42729 OF 2024 5 contentions raised in the appeal. Therefore, Ext.P2 order may be quashed.
5. The learned Government Pleader opposed the writ petition. She submitted that the Judges of the event 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, must be arranged by the participating team. There is no illegality in Ext.P2 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 petitioner contends that her group's performance was adversely affected by a technical snag 2024:KER:90447 WP(C) NO. 42729 OF 2024 6 in the sound system; if not, her group would have secured the first prize. However, the judges did not consider this crucial aspect and only awarded the petitioner's group the second place. This erroneous decision was reconfirmed by the third respondent by the cryptic impugned order.
7. Undisputedly, the judges of the event and the Appellate Authority have considered the petitioner's grievance and concluded that the 4th respondent's group performed better than the petitioner's group.
8. 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 2024:KER:90447 WP(C) NO. 42729 OF 2024 7 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 enquiry regarding their qualifications for appointment as judges. It is also stated that Unnikrishnan, one of the judges was only a student 2024:KER:90447 WP(C) NO. 42729 OF 2024 8 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.
9. This Court has repeatedly reiterated the above exposition of the law in a plethora of judgments, including by 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].
10. On analysing the facts and the materials on record, especially considering that the Experts in the field of art, namely the Judges of the event and the Appellate Authority, have concurrently concluded that the 4th respondent's team was the first prize winner, then it is not for this Court to sit in further appeal over the above decisions and take a contrary view. It is 2024:KER:90447 WP(C) NO. 42729 OF 2024 9 apparent that the Appellate Authority has considered the judges' observations and the marks of the rival teams, viewed the video of the event, and then rejected the appeal.
11. The Judges and Appellate Authorities of the Kalolsavam, function according to the competition regulations. They cannot be equated with judicial or quasi-judicial functionaries. Their function is confined to judging the competitions based on the participant's performance in each event. Their wisdom and reason are final in such matters.
12. 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.
2024:KER:90447 WP(C) NO. 42729 OF 2024 10
13. In the instant case, this Court does not find any such patent illegality or apparent error warranting 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 rmm2/12/2024 2024:KER:90447 WP(C) NO. 42729 OF 2024 11 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42729/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 07.11.2024 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY ORDER NO. 14484 DATED 26.11.2024 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT