Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 3072
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
NANDANA SUNDAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 38/2025
GEORGE MATHEW, BIJILY JOSEPH, SUNIL KUMAR A.G, MATHEW K.T., GEORGE K.V., BOBY MATHEW, STEPHY K, REGI ADITHYA, BENZEER MEDHA B.S., JOHN ZACHARIAH, DOMINIC
Judicial review under Article 226 does not extend to re-evaluating competition results unless there is a clear illegality or error in the decision-making process.
Headnote:(A) Kerala School Kalolsavam Manual - Appeal Committee composition - Writ petition to quash an order denying participation in a competition - The petitioners contested their third-place ranking due to alleged stage defects and improper committee composition - The court found no illegality in the committee's constitution and upheld the judges' assessment. (Paras 2, 5, 8, 11, 12)
(B) Judicial Review - The court reiterated that it does not reassess merits in competitive evaluations unless there is a clear illegality or gross vitiation in the decision-making process. (Paras 9, 10, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners participated in a competition but were dissatisfied with their third-place finish, claiming stage defects and improper committee leadership. They sought to quash the order denying their appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the judges' decision, stating that the assessment of merit is a matter for the appointed judges, and there was no evidence of illegality in the committee's composition.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the judges' assessment and the legality of the Appeal Committee's composition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that it cannot interfere with the judges' assessments unless there is a clear illegality or grossly vitiating circumstance.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P1 order and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to participate in the “Thiruvathirakkali” (Higher Secondary Level - Girls) competition to be held in connection with the Kerala State Level School Kalolsavam 2024-25.
2. The petitioners had participated in the “Thiruvathirakkali” competition in the Kollam Revenue District School Kalolsavam 2024-25. Even though the petitioners had performed well, they could only secure third place because the stage was slippery. Aggrieved by the decision of the Judges, the petitioners had preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent rejected the appeal by Ext.P1 cryptic and non-speaking order. As per the Kalolsavam Manual, the Appeal Committee is to be 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 the interim order in WP(C) No.45245/2024, this Court had permitted the petitioner therein to participate in the Kerala School Kalolsavam. Ext.P1 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
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. He contended that it was by taking into account the violation of the Kalolsavam Manual, this Court by the interim order in WP(C) No.45245/2024, had permitted the petitioner therein to participate in the Kerala State School Kalolsavam. The petitioners are equally placed to the petitioner in WP(C) No.45245/2024. Therefore, the petitioners 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 application. He submitted that the respondents have already filed an application to vacate the interim 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. The Judges have rightly evaluated the competition, which was re-appreciated by the Appeal Committee. Both authorities have concurrently found that the petitioners are only entitled to the third place. The writ petition is meritless and is only to be dismissed.
6. The petitioners' case is that their 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 petitioners had not raised any complaint before or during the performance. It was after the results were declared, the petitioners 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 Districts as mentioned above, who all hold interchangeable posts. I do not find any illega
