IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 15TH POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 446 OF 2024 PETITIONER:

HABIS AKBAR N P AGED 15 YEARS S/O. ALI AKBAR N P , 11TH STANDARD, SILVER HILLS HSS, CHEVAYUR (PO), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.673012 MINOR, REP: BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.MUMTHAZ BEEBI W/O ALI AKBAR N P , AGED 38 YEARS, HANEENAS (HO), PAROPADI (PO), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673017 BY ADV R.B.BALACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REP: BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOZHIKODE DD OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. [GENERAL CONVENER & CHAIRMAN APPEAL COMMITTEE, KOZHIKODE REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2023-2024], PIN - 670002

3 THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS ( GENERAL)

[GENERAL CONVENER, KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2023-

2024] DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014 SRI. SUNIL K.KURIAKOSE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

05.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT The petitioner says that he and his team participated in the Revenue District Kerala School Kalolsavam 2023-24 in a particular event, but was adjudged only rank No.3. He affirms that, as per the Manual applicable to the event in question, only the first rank holder would obtain the opportunity of moving to the next level of competition, namely the Kerala State School Kalolsavam 2023-24; and therefore, that he preferred a statutory appeal against the result before the competent Appellate Authority, which, however, has culminated in Ext.P3 order. The petitioner and his team assert that Ext.P3 is illegal and unlawful because, it cites no reason for the rejection of his appeal.

2. In response to the afore submissions of Sri.R.B.Balachandran – learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, submitted that Ext.P3 contains specific reasons why the appeal of the petitioner was found to be undeserving; and that this is manifest from its contents. He added that, in any event, it has now been well established, through the judgment of this Court in Devna Sumesh v. State of Kerala [2022 KHC OnLine 8081], that once the statutory appeal is rejected, the competence of this Court to act under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is severely attenuated, since it would involve assessment of factual and other relevant criteria, which cannot be done while acting under writ jurisdiction.

3. I have examined Ext.P3 and I must say that there is force in the afore submissions of Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose.

4. This is because, Ext.P3 luculently records that the technical objections raised by the petitioner and his team for their performance to be affected at the Revenue District Kerala School Kalolsavam, were found not tenable, or not discernible from the video recording. The statutory Appellate Committee could have done nothing more than to have heard the petitioner and his team and to have examined the video recording; and it is in their expertise and wisdom to assess it in the manner as is legally appropriate. When the Committee takes the view that the objections raised by the petitioner and his team are not tenable, it would not be possible to substitute their wisdom, with that of this Court.

5. After I dictated this part of the judgment learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a case where Ext.P3 would show that the Committee did not really see the video performance. However, Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader vehemently contested the same; arguing that though not specifically stated in Ext.P3, in every case the Committee has seen the video recording and that the appeal could have been disposed of only in such manner and no other. He concluded saying that, in any event, the difference in