Kerala High Court
Ananthakrishnan N vs State Of Kerala on 7 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 406 of OF 2025
2025:KER:1903
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 17TH POUSHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 406 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ANANTHAKRISHNAN N
AGED 17 YEARS
XII TH CLASS, RAJEEV GANDHI MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL KANNUR DISTRICT- MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER:
SHABINA N, W/O HARINDRAN P. ,42 YEARS, SHNEHALAYA(HO)
MURIYAD (PO),KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670307
BY ADVS.
SUKARNAN
P.NANDAKUMAR (CLT)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP: BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-., 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
WP(C) NO. 406 of OF 2025
2025:KER:1903
2
4 ADDL. DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM JAGATHY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
[GENERAL CONVENER, KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM
2024-25], PIN - 695014
GP SRI SYAMANTHAK B S
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 406 of OF 2025
2025:KER:1903
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.406 of 2025
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P2 order and
direct the 4th respondent to permit the petitioner and his
teammates to participate in the Parichamutt (Boys) [H.S.S.
General] in the Kerala State School Kalolsavam.
2. The petitioner and his teammates had
participated in the above competition in the Kannur
Revenue District Kalolsavam on 22.11.2024. Due to the
negligence of the 2nd respondent there was considerable
delay in commencing the competition, which had a
negative impact on the petitioner's team performance. Due
to such delay, the petitioner and his teammates where
under severe stress and could not perform well. Even
though the petitioner pointed out these aspects to the
judges, they did not consider the same in the proper
WP(C) NO. 406 of OF 2025
2025:KER:1903
perspective. Although the petitioner preferred an appeal
before the 3rd respondent, the same was also dismissed by
Ext.P2 cryptic order without any application of mind. Ext.P2
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 argued that the
petitioner's team had secured second prize only because of
the delayed commencement of the competition. If the
competition had began on time, the petitioner's team would
have secured the first prize. Therefore, the petitioner's
team may be permitted to participate in the Kerala State
School Kalolsavam. Hence, the writ petition may be
allowed.
5. The learned Government Pleader opposed the writ
petition. He submitted that there was no delay in
commencing the competition. Moreover, all the teams had
WP(C) NO. 406 of OF 2025
2025:KER:1903
participated almost at the same time and the judges have
judged the competition as per the performance of the
teams. The Appellate Authority has also reconsidered the
matter and have concluded that the petitioner's team is
only entitled to the second prize. The writ petition is
meritless and is only to be dismissed.
6. The petitioner's case is that; due to the delayed
commencement of the competition, the petitioner's team
performance was adversely effected. The Appellate
Authority has not considered any of the contentions in its
proper perspective, instead, by Ext.P2 stereotyped order,
dismissed the appeal.
7. Indisputably, all the teams had performed during
the same time in the very same competition. It is quite
natural that when school festivals of such nature are
conducted, there would be some delay. After participating
in the competition, the petitioner cannot turn around and
now complain about the delay, especially after knowing that
WP(C) NO. 406 of OF 2025
2025:KER:1903
the petitioner's team only secured second place. The
experts in the field have rightly evaluated the competition
and awarded the marks as per their performance.
8. In Rhomy Chandra Mohan v Gen. 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
WP(C) NO. 406 of OF 2025
2025:KER:1903
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 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].
10. 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
WP(C) NO. 406 of OF 2025
2025:KER:1903
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.
11. 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 reasoning are
final in such matters.
12. 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.
WP(C) NO. 406 of OF 2025
2025:KER:1903
13. 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
SCB.07.01.25.
WP(C) NO. 406 of OF 2025
2025:KER:1903
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 406/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NET RESULT, SHOWING THE
GRADE AND POSITION OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO:
DDEKNR/7929/2024/E3 (84) DATED 05.12.2024
PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT
