HRISHIKESH ROY, J.

1. The appellant and his teammates of Government VHSS & BHSS, Kottarakkara, participated in the item 'Parichamuttu' for boys in Kollam Revenue District School Kalothsavam, 2018-19, at the Vimalahridya HSS, Kottarakkara and secured the 3rd position belying their higher expectation. Thus aggrieved, they challenged the fairness of the assessment made by the Judges in the competition, by preferring an appeal before the Appeal Committee (3rd respondent).

2. The Appeal Committee, as can be seen from their order dated 28.11.2018 (Ext.P6), reviewed the video of the performance in the competition and concluded that the complainants did not perform as well, as the team which secured the first position. On this basis, the appeal was rejectedby the Ext.P6 order.

3. The appellant then filed W.P.(C)No.39425/2018, where he raised the issue of slippery stage on which the competitions were conducted and also the faulty assessment made by the Judges. However, the learned Judge under the impugned judgment dated 4.12.2018, dismissed the writ petition by rejecting the contention that the appeal has not been considered in terms of the Kerala School KalothsavaManual, 2018.

4. Sri. Manu Ramachandran as the learned counsel representing the appellant/petitioner would point out that the dress of the team which secured the first position is much inferior to the dress worn by the petitioner's team. Moreover since the floor of the stage was slippery, this was a serious disadvantage for the petitioner.

5. On the above contention what needs to be observed is that a slippery stage will be equally disadvantageous to all participants. Insofar as the dismissal order of the Appeal Committee, we find that they had reviewed the video performance of the teams and on that basis concluded that the performance level of the petitioner's team was not upto the mark of the team which won the first position. As per the Kalothsava Manual, an appeal to the appeal Committee has to be submitted in the form prescribed in Appendix-II, wherein the appellant has to state the grounds of appeal. The petitioner has not chosen to produce a copy of the appeal, along with this writ petition. Though it was alleged in the writ petition that two out of three Judges who have evaluated the event were not expert in the item 'Parichamuttu', the basic facts in support of such contention is not pleaded in the writ petition. The materials placed on record would not show that such a contention was ever raised before the Appeal Committee. It can't also be overlooked here that the team which secured the top position is not arrayed in the court proceedings.

6. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [(1988) 4 SCC 534], the Apex Court held that, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not so pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. The Apex Court held further that there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e., a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.

7. In Rhomy Chandra Mohan v. Gen. Convenor, Balakalotsavam and Yuvajanotsavam (1992 (1) KLJ 515) this Court, while dealing with the grievance of a student who had participated in the item 'Bharathanatyam' in the Trichur District Yuvajanotsavam, 1992 held that the award of marks and ranks in a contest in the nature of Yuvajanotsavam is primarily