JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2024 The writ petition is filed to declare that the petitioners are the first prize winners of the group dance competition (H.S.S) in the Kottayam Revenue District School Kalolsavam and permit them to participate in the State Level School Kalolsavam scheduled in January, 2025.

2. The petitioners had participated in the group dance competition of the Kottayam Revenue District School Kalolsavam held on 27.11.2024. While performing in the competition, the petitioners found the stage slippery. Two other participants had also slipped and fallen down. After the said incident, the organizing committee had laid floor mats on the stage. Yet, the stage was slippery. Then the organisers used cello-tapes and pins to fix the stage. But, the pins had pierced the legs of the petitioners, which prevented them from performing well. Consequently, the petitioners were only given second prize. It is only due to defects on the stage that the petitioners could not perform well. Although, the petitioners had preferred Ext.P7 appeal before the 4^th respondent, the same was rejected by Ext.P8 cryptic and non-speaking order. Ext.P8 is illegal and arbitary.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard: Sri.P.C.Haridas, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, 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 there were no defects in the stage. The Judges have rightly evaluated the competition and awarded the marks on the basis of the performance of the teams. The said decision was reconfirmed by the Appellate Authority. There is no illegality in Ext.P8 order warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. The petitioners’ case is that their team’s performance was adversely affected due to the belated starting of the competition and the defects in the stage.

7. Indisputably, all the teams for the competition performed during the same time period and on the same stage. The Stage Manager’s report shows there was no defect on the stage. Moreover, the petitioners had not raised any complaint before or during their performance. It was after the results were declared that the petitioners had raised the above grievances.

8. The judges of the above competition and the Appellate Authority have considered the petitioners’ grievances and have concluded that they are 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 se