Kerala High Court
Salviyasaj (Minor) vs The State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 378 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:339
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. 378 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SALVIYASAJ (MINOR)
AGED 15 YEARS, D/O. SAJEEVAN, PONMERI PARAMBIL P.O.
VADAKARA TALUK, REPRESENTED HER FATHER SAJEEVAN,
S/O. KUMARAN, AGED 50 YEARS, KALLULLAPARAMBATH,
PONMERI PARAMBIL P.O.,VADAKARA TALUK KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673542
BY ADV SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE GENERAL CONVENER
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM PROVIDENCE GIRLS
H.S.S., NADAKAVU KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673011
3 THE CHAIRMAN
APPEAL COMMITTEE (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION)
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM PROVIDENCE GIRLS
H.S.S., NADAKAVU KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673011
4 GENERAL COORDINATOR
DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION STATE SCHOOL
KALOLSAVAM, SMV H.S.S., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
WP(C) NO. 378 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:339
5 GENERAL CONVENER
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION STATE
SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM SMV H.S.S., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
BY 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:
WP(C) NO. 378 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:339
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 06th day of January, 2025 The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P6 order passed by the 3rd respondent and permit the petitioner to participate in the HS General Mappilappattu (Girls) competition in the Kerala State Level School Kalolsavam 2024-2025.
2. The petitioner had participated in the Mappilappattu (Girls) competition in the Kozhikode Revenue District School Kalolsavam. The petitioner's performance was adversely affected due to the defective audio system, if not, the petitioner would have secured the first prize. Eventhough the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent, the same was dismissed by Ext.P6 cryptic order, without any application of mind. The petitioner had also preferred a suit before the Jurisdictional Civil Court, but the same was also dismissed WP(C) NO. 378 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:339 by Ext.P7 order holding that the said court does not have the jurisdiction. Exts.P6 and P7 are illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
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 also submitted that eventhough the petitioner had preferred an appeal on 21.11.2024, the same was considered by the 3 rd respondent only on 07.12.2024, that is after 16 days, which is in violation of the guidelines in the Kalolsavam Manual. The delay in deciding the appeal has caused prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition may be allowed.
5. The learned Government Pleader opposed the writ petition. He submitted that as per the Stage Manager's report there were no defects in the audio system. All the participating teams had performed through the very same audio system. The Judges have rightly awarded marks to the competing teams. It is only due to WP(C) NO. 378 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:339 the huge pendency of the appeals before the 3 rd respondent, there was some delay in deciding the appeal. The delay in deciding in appeal has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner because the order was passed on 07.12.2024. The petitioner could have challenged the order immediately on receipt of the same, but has filed the writ petition only on 06.01.2025. The competition is to be held tomorrow. The writ petition is meritless and is only to be dismissed.
6. The petitioner's contention is that it is due to the defect in the audio system, she could not perform well.
7. Indisputably, all the participants in the competition performed through the same audio system. The Stage Manager's report shows there was no defect in the audio system. Moreover, the petitioner had not raised any complaint before or during the performance. It was only after the results were declared that the petitioner had raised the above grievances. Similarly, I find that the contention regarding the delay in preferring the appeal to be untenable, because Ext.P6 order was passed on WP(C) NO. 378 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:339 07.12.2024, but the writ petition is filed before the competition, which is to be held on 07.01.2025. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner.
8. The judges of the above competition and the Appellate Authority have considered the petitioner's grievances and have concluded that they were only entitled to the second prize.
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 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 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 WP(C) NO. 378 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:339 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 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 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 WP(C) NO. 378 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:339 of the competition and the Appellate Authority, who have concurrently concluded that the petitioners were only entitled to the second prize, 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 participants and the Stage Manager's report and have then rejected the appeal by the impugned order.
13. 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.
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 WP(C) NO. 378 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:339 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 NAB WP(C) NO. 378 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:339 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 378/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN MAPPILAPPATTU (GIRLS) WITH A GRADE IN THE STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM IN 2023-2024 TO THE PETITIONER DATED 07-01-2024 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FOR DESABHAKTHIGANAM IN THE STATE KALOLSAVAM DATED 08-01-2024 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FOR OPPANA (GIRLS)WITH A GRADE IN THE KERALA STATE KALOLSAVAM ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 04-01-2023 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FOR DESABHAKTHIGANAM WITH A GRADE IN THE KERALA STATE KALOLSAVAM ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 03-01-2023 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE MAPPILAPPATTU (GIRLS) OF KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM WITH INDIVIDUAL SCORE SHEET OF THE PARTICIPANT DATED 19-11-2024 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07-12-2024 EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03-01-2025 IN C.M.P. NO.179 OF 2024 IN O.S. NO.
( UNNUMBERED /2024) ON THE FILES OF VACATION COURT , KOZHIKODE ( TO BE FILED BEFORE A MUNSIFF COURT II A, KOZHIKODE)