Kerala High Court
Vishnu Thejasi N M vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 298 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:814
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. 298 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
VISHNU THEJASI N M
AGED 14 YEARS
AGED 14 YEARS (MINOR) D/O. BAIJU N M, RESIDING AT
NADUKKANDI MEETHAL KANNANKARA P O, CHELANNUR
VILLAGE, CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND
GUARDIAN BAIJU N M, AGED 49 YEARS S/O VELLAN,
RESIDING AT NADUKKANDI MEETHAL KANNANKARA P O,
CHELANNUR VILLAGE, CALICUT, PIN - 673616
BY ADV AHAMMAD SACHIN K.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED TY THE SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO. 206, SECOND FLOOR, SOUTH
SANDWICH BLOCK, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GENERAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION/GENERAL
CONVENER
KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2024-2025, ROOM NO.
206, SECOND FLOOR, SOUTH SANDWICH BLOCK, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GENERAL.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION/THE JOINT GENERAL
CONVENER
KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2024-2025, OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE REVENUE
DISTRICT, MANANCHIRA.P.O. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN -
673014
4 THE CHAIRMAN/ DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
WP(C) NO. 298 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:814
APPEAL COMMITTEE OF REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL
KALOLSAVAM, HIGH SCHOOL WING, MANANCHIRA.P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673014
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMRI SYAMANTHAK B S
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. 298 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:814
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.298 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order and
to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to
participate in the "Group Dance (Girls)" (HS General)
competition to be held in connection with the Kerala State
School Youth Festival.
2. The petitioner and her team had participated in
the Group Dance competition in the Kozhikode Revenue
District School Kalolsavam 2024-25. Even though the
petitioner and her team had performed well, they could
only secure an 'A Grade' because one of the members of
the petitioner's team got injured from the properties kept
in the stage. Aggrieved by the order of the Judges, the
petitioner had preferred an appeal before the 4 th
respondent. However, the 4th respondent rejected the
appeal by Ext.P4 cryptic and non-speaking order. As per
the Kalolsavam Manual, the Appeal Committee was to be
WP(C) NO. 298 OF 2025
2025:KER:814
headed by a Joint Director. However, in the case on hand,
the Appeal Committee was headed by the Chief Planning
Officer of the Directorate of General Education, which is in
violation of the Manual. In a similar matter, by an interim
order in WP(C) No.45245/2024, this Court had permitted
the petitioner therein to participate in the Kerala State
School Kalolsavam. Ext.P4 is 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 contended that it
was considering the violation of the Kalolsavam Manual, by
an interim order in WP(C) No.45245/2024, this Court had
permitted the petitioner therein to participate in the Kerala
State School Kalolsavam. The petitioner and her team are
equally placed to the petitioner in WP(C) No.45245/2024.
Therefore, the petitioner and her team may be permitted to
participate in the Kerala State School Kalolsavam. Hence,
the writ petition may be allowed.
WP(C) NO. 298 OF 2025
2025:KER:814
5. The learned Government Pleader opposed the
application. He submitted that the respondents have
already filed an application to vacate the order in WP(C)
No.45245/2024. According to the learned Government
Pleader, as per the School Kalolsavam Manual, the District
Level Appeal Committee is to be constituted by the Joint
Director, General Education/ Deputy Director of Education,
General Education Department/Deputy Director of
Education of other Districts including Regional Deputy
Director (HSE) and Assistant Director (VHSE) as Appeal
Committee members. As per the constitution of the District
Level Committee, the Joint Director of General Education,
the Deputy Director of Education of the Directorate of
General Education or the Deputy Director of other Districts
could be appointed as a Chairman of the Appeal
Committee. Therefore, the contention raised by the
petitioner that the Chief Planning Officer of the Directorate
of General Education is incompetent, is untenable. He
contended that as per the Stage Manager's report, there
was no defect in the stage as contended by the petitioner.
WP(C) NO. 298 OF 2025
2025:KER:814
The Judges have rightly evaluated the competition, which
was re-appreciated by the Appeal Committee. Both
Authorities have concurrently found that the petitioner and
her team are only entitled to only an 'A Grade'. This writ
petition is meritless and is only to be dismissed.
6. The petitioner's case is that her team's
performance was adversely affected due to the defects on
the stage. Similarly, the Appeal Committee was headed by
incompetent officers.
7. Indisputably, all the teams who participated in
the competition performed during the same time at the
very same stage. The Stage Manager's report shows that
there was no defect on the stage. Moreover, the petitioner
and her team had not raised any complaint before or
during the performance. It was after the results were
declared, the petitioner had raised the above complaints.
Similarly, I accept the contention of the learned
Government Pleader that the Appeal Committee can
comprise of the Joint Director, Deputy Director of
Education or the Deputy Director of Education of other
WP(C) NO. 298 OF 2025
2025:KER:814
Districts as mentioned above, who all hold interchangeable
posts. I do not find any illegality in the constitution of the
Appeal Committee.
8. The Judges of the above competition and the
Appellate Authority have considered the petitioner's
grievances and have concluded that the petitioner and her
team are only entitled to 'A' Grade.
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
WP(C) NO. 298 OF 2025
2025:KER:814
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 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."
WP(C) NO. 298 OF 2025
2025:KER:814
10. This Court has repeatedly reiterated the above
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 an analysis of the facts and the materials on
record, especially 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 and her team were only entitled to 'A'
grade, it is not for this Court to sit in further appeal over
the above decisions and take a contrary view.
12. The Judges and the Appellate Authority 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 participants'
WP(C) NO. 298 OF 2025
2025:KER:814
performance in each event. Their wisdom and reason are
final in such matters.
13. 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.
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. 298 OF 2025
2025:KER:814
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 298/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF
THEERTHA V DATED 21.11.2024 ISSUED FROM
THE ASTER MIMS HOSPITAL, CALICUT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET OF SANGHA
NRUTHAM (GIRLS) HS GENERAL) WITH RESPECT
TO KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM 2024-2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING
SUBMISSION OF APPEAL BEFORE THE
APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY DATED 22.11.2024
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.C2/9152/2024(127) DATED 07.12.2024
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
KERALA KALOLSAVAM MANUAL
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS
HONORABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 45245 OF 2024
DATED 24.12.2024
