Kerala High Court
Nandana Vinesh R vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 283 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:340
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. 283 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 NANDANA VINESH R
AGED 15 YEARS
(MINOR), D/O. VINESH G., CLASS X H, GOVERNMENT GHS,
KARUNAGAPALLY, RADHAMADHAVAM, PUNNAKULAM,
PUTHIYKAVU, K.S. PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, REP. BY HER FATHER VINESH G., S/O
GOPINATHAN PILLAI, RADHAMADHAVAM PUNNAKULAM,
PUTHIYKAVU, K.S. PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 690544
2 GOURI SREEKUMAR
AGED 15 YEARS
(MINOR) D/O. SREEKUMAR S., CLASS X H, GOVERNMENT
GHS, KARUNAGAPALLY, KUTTIYILVADAKKATHIL, MUZHANGODI,
THODIYOOR P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY KOLLAM, REP. BY HER
FATHER SREEKUMAR S., S/O. SANKARA PILLAI
KUTTIYILVADAKKATHIL, MUZHANGODI, THODIYOOR P.O.,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690523
3 AVANTHIKA GIRISH
AGED 15 YEARS
(MINOR) D/O. GIREESH KUMAR S., CLASS X H, GOVERNMENT
GHS, KARUNAGAPALLY, GOURI SANKARAM, SVM P.O.,
KOZHIKODE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. REP. BY HER FATHER
SADASIVAN S., GOURI SANKARAM, SVM P.O., KOZHIKODE,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690573
4 MAHALEKSHMI A
AGED 16 YEARS
(MINOR) D/O. KRISHNA KUMAR, (MINOR), CLASS X C,
GOVERNMENT GHS, KARUNAGAPALLY, PRANAVAM, ADINADU
NORTH P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, REP. BY HER FATHER
KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O. SATHEESH, PRANAVAM, ADINADU
NORTH P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690542
WP(C) NO. 283 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:340
5 SREELEKSHMI R
AGED 15 YEARS
(MINOR) D/O. SUDHI S., CLASS X F, GOVERNMENT GHS,
KARUNAGAPALLY, EDAYILA VEEDU MUZHANGODI THODIYOOR
P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. REP. BY HER FATHER
SUDHI S., S/O SIVADASAN, EDAYILA VEEDU, MUZHANGODI,
THODIYOOR P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690523
6 POOJA K
AGED 14 YEARS
(MINOR), D/O KRISHNAKUMAR S., CLASS IX I, GOVERNMENT
GHS, KARUNAGAPALLY, MAZHAVILLU, THEKKETHARA, AYALUR
P.O., PALAKKAD, REP. BY HER FATHER KRISHNAKUMAR S.,
S/O SANKU KURUKKAL, MAZHAVILLU, THEKKETHARA, AYALUR
P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678510
7 SWATHI PRABHAKARAN
AGED 15 YEARS
(MINOR) D/O. M. PRABHAKARAN, CLASS X J, GOVERNMENT
GHS, KARUNAGAPALLY, KRISHNA KRIPA, VADAKKUMTHALA
(EAST), VADAKKUMTHALA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM,
REP. BY HER FATHER M. PRABHAKARAN, S/O M. MUKUNDAN,
KRISHNA KRIPA, VADAKKUMTHALA (EAST),VADAKKUMTHALA
P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690536
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SRI.BIJILY JOSEPH
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SRI.MATHEW K.T.
SRI.GEORGE K.V.
SRI.BOBY MATHEW
SRI.STEPHY K REGI
SRI.ADITHYA BENZEER
SMT.MEDHA B.S.
SRI.JOHN ZACHARIAH DOMINIC
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
WP(C) NO. 283 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:340
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
APPEAL COMMITTEE FOR KERALA SCHOOL KALOTHSAVAM 2024-
2025/CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
EDUCATION, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION,
DPI BHAVAN, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695014
4 THE GENERAL CONVENOR-PROGRAMME COMMITTEE FOR KERALA
SCHOOL KALOTHSAVAM 2024-2025
DISTRICT LEVEL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DDE
OFFICE, THEVALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691009
SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP
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. 283 OF 2025 4
2025:KER:340
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 06th day of January, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P2 order and
permit the petitioners to participate in the Group Dance
(High School Level-Girls) competition in the Kerala State
School Youth Festival 2024-2025.
2. The petitioners had participated in the
Group Dance competition in the Kollam Revenue District
School Kalolsavam. Although the petitioners had
performed well in the competition, because the curtain on
the stage was lowered on three occasions and due the
defective audio system, the petitioners could not secure
the 1st prize. Eventhough, the petitioners had preferred
Ext.P1 appeal before the 3rd respondent, the same was
dismissed by Ext.P2 cryptic order, without any application
of mind. Ext.P2 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ
petition.
2025:KER:340
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners
reiterated the contentions in the writ petition.
5. The learned Government Pleader submitted
that as per the Stage Manager's report and also as per the
recorded video, there were no defects in the audio system
and the curtain was not lowered during the petitioners'
performance. The Judges as well as the Appellate
Authority have appreciated the matter in its right
perspective and rightly arrived at a conclusion that the
petitioners were not entitled to the first prize. There is no
error in the said judgment. Hence, the writ petition may
be dismissed.
6. The petitioners' case is that their performance
was adversely affected due to the lowering of the curtain
during their performance and also due to the defective
audio system.
7. On an appreciation of the materials on
record, especially the Stage Manager's report, it is evident
2025:KER:340
that the curtain was not lowered during the petitioners
performance and also there was no defect in the audio
system. These aspects were taken note by the Judges and
re-appreciated by the Appellate Authority. It is after
considering these aspects that the best performing team
was awarded the first prize.
8. 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
A grade II cannot be found fault with. As stated earlier, the
assessment was made by judges competent for the purpose. It is
2025:KER:340
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
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].
10. On analysing 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 petitioners were only
2025:KER:340
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.
11. It is discernible that the Appellate Authority
has considered the Judges' observations, the marks of the
rival teams and the Stage Manager's report and have
rejected the appeal by the impugned order.
12. 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.
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
2025:KER:340
decision, which goes to its roots, may vitiate the decision-
making process.
14. 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
2025:KER:340
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 283/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DTD. 30.11.2024
SUBMITTED TO 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING NO. C2/4481/2024
DTD. 05.12.2024 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
