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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
