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
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
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
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
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
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
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
