Judicial review under Article 226 does not extend to reassessing competition results unless there is a clear illegality or error in the decision-making process.

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the “Group Dance (Girls)” (HS General) competition to be held in connection with the Kerala State School Youth Festival.

2. The petitioner and her team had participated in the Group Dance competition in the Kozhikode Revenue District School Kalolsavam 2024-25. Even though the petitioner and her team had performed well, they could only secure an 'A Grade' because one of the members of the petitioner's team got injured from the properties kept in the stage. Aggrieved by the order of the Judges, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the 4^th respondent. However, the 4^th respondent rejected the appeal by Ext.P4 cryptic and non-speaking order. As per the Kalolsavam Manual, the Appeal Committee was 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 an interim order in WP(C) No.45245/2024, this Court had permitted the petitioner therein to participate in the Kerala State School Kalolsavam. Ext.P4 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 contended that it was considering the violation of the Kalolsavam Manual, by an interim order in WP(C) No.45245/2024, this Court had permitted the petitioner therein to participate in the Kerala State School Kalolsavam. The petitioner and her team are equally placed to the petitioner in WP(C) No.45245/2024. Therefore, the petitioner and her 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 application. He submitted that the respondents have already filed an application to vacate the 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 as contended by the petitioner.

The Judges have rightly evaluated the competition, which was re-appreciated by the Appeal Committee. Both Authorities have concurrently found that the petitioner and her team are only entitled to only an 'A Grade'. This writ petition is meritless and is only to be dismissed.

6. The petitioner's case is that her team's 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 petitioner and her team had not raised any complaint before or during the performance. It was after the results were declared, the petitioner 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