Kerala High Court

Niveditha K vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                          2025:KER:318

               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. 245 OF 2025


PETITIONER:

            NIVEDITHA K
            AGED 15 YEARS
            XTH CLASS, MATTANUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KANNUR
            DISTRICT, MINOR REPT: BY MOTHER: KAVITHA, W/O MANOJ,42
            YEARS, ARINGODE (H) MATTANNUR (PO) KANNUR DISTRICT,,
            PIN - 670702

            BY ADVS.
            R.UMASANKAR
            P.NANDAKUMAR (CLT)



RESPONDENTS:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REP: BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GENERAL EDUCATION
            DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001

    2       DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
            KANNUR , KANNUR DISTRICT, [GENERAL CONVENER, KANNUR
            REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM], PIN - 670002

    3       CHAIRMAN APPEAL COMMITTEE
            KANNUR REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM. O/O DEPUTY
            DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION- KANNUR KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN -
            670002

    4       ADDL. DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,(GENERAL)
            JAGATHY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, [GENERAL CONVENER,
            KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2024-25], PIN -
            695014

            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:
                                                          2025:KER:318
WP(C) NO. 245 OF 2025

                                   2




      Dated this the 6th day of January, 2025

                         JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.3 order

and direct the fourth respondent to permit the

petitioner and her teammates to participate in the group

dance (girls H.S. General) competition in the Kerala

State School Kalolsavam.

2. The petitioner and her teammates had

participated in the group dance competition in the

Kannur Revenue District School Kalolsavam. The

petitioner had performed well in the competition and

was hopeful of getting the first prize. However, due to

the slipping of the carpet, the petitioner could not

perform well. Consequently, the petitioner was awarded

only third position with 'A' grade. Although the petitioner

had preferred an appeal before the third respondent, by

the impugned Ext.P2 order, the appeal was perfunctorily 2025:KER:318 WP(C) NO. 245 OF 2025

dismissed by Ext.P2 cryptic order, without any

application of mind. Ext.P2 is illegal and arbitrary.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard; Sri. R. Umasankar, the learned

counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Vidya Kuriakose, 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 as alleged by the petitioners. All the

teams performed on the same stage, and it was the best-

performing team who was awarded the first place. There

is a difference of 15 marks between the first-place team

and the petitioner's team. The other grounds that have

been raised in the writ petition were never urged before

the Judges or the Appellate Authority. The writ petition is

meritless and is only to be dismissed.

2025:KER:318 WP(C) NO. 245 OF 2025

6. The petitioner's case is that since the stage

was slippery, the petitioner's team could not perform to

its full potential. Even though the petitioner had

preferred an appeal before the third respondent, the

same was also rejected without considering the matter in

detail.

7. Indisputably, all the teams for the competition

performed during the same time period and on the same

stage. The Stage Manager's report shows there were no

defects 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. 2025:KER:318 WP(C) NO. 245 OF 2025

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 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.

2025:KER:318 WP(C) NO. 245 OF 2025

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)

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 of the competition and the Appellate Authority,

who have concurrently concluded that the petitioner's

team was 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 2025:KER:318 WP(C) NO. 245 OF 2025

rival teams and the Stage Manager's report and have

rejected the petitioner's 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. Even otherwise, the purported

delay in starting the competition and the defects on the

stage were equally applicable to all the performing

teams.

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.

2025:KER:318 WP(C) NO. 245 OF 2025

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

mtk/6.01.25 2025:KER:318 WP(C) NO. 245 OF 2025

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 245/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TESTIMONY CERTIFICATE DATED 16-12-2024 ISSUED BY THE HEADMISTRESS, MATTANNUR HSS SHOWING THE GRADE AND POSITION OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT-P2 A PHOTOGRAPH DEPICTING THE PARTICIPANT'S ATTEMPT AT THE JUMP.

EXHIBIT-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO: