Judicial review does not extend to reassessing competition evaluations unless there's clear illegality or a procedural error.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS MONDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 16TH POUSHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 295 OF 2025 PETITIONER/S:

VIJAY K AGED 16 YEARS S/O. K. BABU RAJAN, KUZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY FATHER, GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND, K. BABU RAJAN, S/O.

RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 48 YEARS, KUZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 019, PIN - 673019 BY ADVS.

T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR JAYKAR.K.S.

VANDANA A.

ANJALI R. MENON C.SIVADAS RESPONDENT/S:

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

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001

4 THE GENERAL CONVENER (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION), KOZHIKODE REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL 2024, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001

5 THE APPEAL COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM 2024, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001

6 THE GENERAL CONVENER

63RD KERALA STATE SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL PROGRAMME COMMITTEE 2024-2025, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 GP SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

06.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------

WP(C) No. 295 of 2025 -----------------------------------------

Dated this the 6^th day of January, 2025

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P6 order and to direct the 6^th respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the “Mono Act” (HSS Boys) competition in the

63^rd Kerala State School Kalolsavam, 2024-2025.

2. The petitioner had participated in the Mono Act (HSS Boys) competition in the Kozhikode Revenue District School Kalolsavam. Although the petitioner performed well, he was only awarded the fifth place. The petitioner's performance was affected due to the defects in the audio system. Furthermore, the Judges had not awarded the marks as per the norms in Ext.P3 Kalolsavam Manual. The Judges ought to have assessed the performance of the competitors as per the parameters laid down in Ext.P3. Although the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the 5^th respondent, the same was rejected by Ext.P6 cryptic and non-speaking order. Ext.P6 is arbitrary and illegal. 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 stated that there was a malfunctioning in the sound system and that the Judges failed to comply with the specific stipulations in Ext.P3, wherein, the Judges were bound to award marks to the competitors as per the five criterias mentioned in column No.24 of Ext.P3. Even though the petitioner challenged the matter in Appeal, the Appellate Authority has not considered these matters in its proper perspective. Hence, Ext.P6 is illegal. Therefore, the writ petition may be allowed.

5. The learned Government Pleader opposed the application. She submitted that the only ground that was raised before the Appellate Authority in Ext.P5 Appeal is that the stand of the microphone was not properly fixed. The contention regarding non-compliance of Ext.P3 has been raised for the first time before this Court in the writ petition. Therefore, the said contention is untenable. Moreover, as per the Stage Manager's report, there was no defect in the audio system. The petitioner has only secured the fifth place. The Judges have rightly evaluated the competition and the Appellate Authority has re-considered the matter judiciously.

The writ petition is hence only to be dismissed.

6. The petitioner's case is that