Kerala High Court
Alhan T N vs State Of Kerala on 4 December, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 43180 OF 2024
1
2024:KER:92069
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 43180 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 ALHAN T N
AGED 14 YEARS
SON OF NAUSHAD T H, THERUVATH HOUSE, CHITTATTUKARA
VIA, ELAVALLY P.O, KAKKASSERY, CHAVAKKAD TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN SHANAWAZ
KALEEMULLAH V, AGED 44 YRS, SON OF MUHAMMED ALI K.V,
KARUPPAM VEETTIL HOUSE, PALAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680506
2 MOHAMED NIJASH
AGED 15 YEARS
SON OF N S NOUSHAD, NEDUMPURAKKAL HOUSE, PAVARATTY,
CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
GUARDIAN SHANAWAZ KALEEMULLAH V, AGED 44 YRS, SON OF
MUHAMMED ALI K.V., KARUPPAM VEETTIL HOUSE, PALAYOOR,
CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680506
3 NAIZAN NAZEER
AGED 15 YEARS
SON OF R M NASEER, MOOPIL HOUSE, KARUVARAKKUNDU,
ORUMANAYUR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN SHANAWAZ KALEEMULLAH V, AGED
44 YRS, SON OF MUHAMMED ALI K.V, KARUPPAM VEETTIL
HOUSE, PALAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680506
4 SIMAK A H
AGED 14 YEARS
SON OF HAMSA, AMBALATH VEETTIL HOUSE, CHITTATTUKARA,
ELAVALLY, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN SHANAWAZ KALEEMULLAH V, AGED
44 YRS, SON OF MUHAMMED ALI K.V, KARUPPAM VEETTIL
HOUSE, PALAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680506
WP(C) NO. 43180 OF 2024
2
2024:KER:92069
5 JUNAID K V
AGED 14 YEARS
SON OF SHAHNAWAZ KALEEMULLAH V, KARUPPAMVEETTIL
HOUSE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN SHANAWAZ KALEEMULLAH V, AGED
44 YRS, SON OF MUHAMMED ALI K.V, KARUPPAM VEETTIL
HOUSE, PALAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680506
6 MUHAMMED RAFEEQ M S
AGED 14 YEARS
SON OF M B SAYED MOHAMMED, MATHILAKATH HOUSE,
MULIASSERY, THIRUNELLUR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN SHANAWAZ
KALEEMULLAH V, AGED 44 YRS, SON OF MUHAMMED ALI K.V,
KARUPPAM VEETTIL HOUSE, PALAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680506
7 MUHAMMAD NAASIH R H
AGED 15 YEARS
SON OF R K HAREES, RAYAMARAKKAR VEETTIL HOUSE,
MULLASSERY CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN SHANAWAZ KALEEMULLAH V, AGED
44 YRS, SON OF MUHAMMED ALI K.V, KARUPPAM VEETTIL
HOUSE, PALAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680506
8 MOHHAMMED MAHFUZ NIYAS
AGED 15 YEARS
SON OF NIYAS P MOHAMMED, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, MAMABAZAR,
CHAKKAMKANDAM P O, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN SHANAWAZ
KALEEMULLAH V, AGED 44 YRS, SON OF MUHAMMED ALI K.V,
KARUPPAM VEETTIL HOUSE, PALAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680506
9 HISHAM ABDUL RAHIM
AGED 15 YEARS
SON OF RAHIM P C, PONTHUVEETTIL CHAKKARAPPULLY HOUSE,
PAVARATTY, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN SHANAWAZ KALEEMULLAH V, AGED
44 YRS, SON OF MUHAMMED ALI K.V, KARUPPAM VEETTIL
HOUSE, PALAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680506
0 MOHAMED FARHAN P Y
AGED 14 YEARS
SON OF YAKOOB MUHAMMED ALI, PANIKKAVEETTIL HOUSE,
WP(C) NO. 43180 OF 2024
3
2024:KER:92069
IIARRIYOOR, GURUVAYOOR P O, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN SHANAWAZ
KALEEMULLAH V, AGED 44 YRS, SON OF MUHAMMED ALI K.V,
KARUPPAM VEETTIL HOUSE, PALAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680506
BY ADV B.SABITHA (DESOM)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER
CHAIRMAN AND APPEAL COMMITTEE, SUB DISTRICT
KALOLSAVAM, MULLASSERY, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR, PIN -
680508
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION - THRISSUR
GENERAL CONVENER AND CHAIRMAN APPEAL COMMITTEE
THRISSUR REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2024,
OFFICE AT: GOVT. MODEL BOYS VOCATIONAL HSS,
KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680503
4 PROGRAMME COMMITTEE CONVENOR (GENERAL)
PRINCIPAL, ST JOSEPH H S, PAVARATTY, THRISSUR, PIN -
680507
5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER (TREASURER PROGRAMME
COMMITTEE)
ST JOSEPH H S, PAVARATTY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680507
GP SRI SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.12.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 43180 OF 2024
4
2024:KER:92069
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.43180 of 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2024
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P1 order and direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to participate in the Arabanamuttu competition at the Thrissur Revenue District School Kalolsavam.
2. The petitioners' case is that, they have participated in the Mullassery Sub-District High School Youth Festival Sub-District level that was conducted by the 4th respondent for the Arabanamuttu competition and had secured only 'A' Grade. So, they were disqualified from participating in the Thrissur Revenue District School Kalolsavam. There were several technical limitations and flaws in the stage, which limited the performance of the participants. The stage was not having monitoring/feedback speaker facing the participants, and the sound system was very poor. Even though the petitioners preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent, the same was dismissed by WP(C) NO. 43180 OF 2024 5 2024:KER:92069 Ext.P1 order. Ext.P1 is per se illegal and arbitrary. The Appellate Authority has not considered any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. Instead, by a cryptic order, the Appellate Authority has perfunctorily rejected the petitioners appeal. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; Smt. B.Sabitha, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions in the writ petition. She contended that the Appellate Authority had not viewed the videograph of the event, which is imperative to evaluate the performance of the teams. It was without viewing the video that the 2 nd respondent confirmed the assessment made by the judges, which by itself proves that the impugned order is unsustainable in law. Hence, the writ petition may be allowed.
5. The learned Government Pleader opposed the writ petition. He submitted that there is no mandate that the WP(C) NO. 43180 OF 2024 6 2024:KER:92069 Appellate Authority has to view the video of the event. As the petitioners had only pointed out a defect in the stage, the Appellate Authority had called for the score sheet and the report of the Stage Manager. The Stage Manager had not reported any defect in the stage. Moreover, the two other teams competed in the event and it was the best performing team that was awarded the first prize. The petitioners' and the third team were placed in the second and third places, respectively. It is only for the purpose carving of a ground that the petitioners have raised the present contention. There is no illegality or error in the assessment made by the judges, which has been re- appreciated by the Appellate Authority and they have arrived at the same conclusion. There is no ground warranting inference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed.
6. The petitioners contention is that they could not perform well due to the technical limitations and technical WP(C) NO. 43180 OF 2024 7 2024:KER:92069 flaws in the stage. It is only because of the said flaws, the petitioners could not achieve the first price.
7. The judges of the above competition and the Appellate Authority have considered the petitioners grievance and concluded that they are only entitled to the second prize.
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 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 WP(C) NO. 43180 OF 2024 8 2024:KER:92069 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.
9. 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 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, WP(C) NO. 43180 OF 2024 9 2024:KER:92069 namely the Judges of the competition and the Appellate Authority, have concurrently concluded that the petitioners were only entitled to the second place, then it is not for this Court to sit in further appeal over the above decisions and take a contrary view. It is discernible that the Appellate Authority has considered the judges' observations and the marks of the participants and the report of the Stage Manager, and then rejected the appeal by the impugned order.
11. 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 reasoning 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 WP(C) NO. 43180 OF 2024 10 2024:KER:92069 or an error apparent on the face of the decision, which goes to its roots, may vitiate the decision-making process.
13. In the instant case, this Court does not find any patent illegality or apparent error in the impugned order that 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 SCB/04.12.24 WP(C) NO. 43180 OF 2024 11 2024:KER:92069 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43180/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 27.11.2024