Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56521
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.ARUN, J
DEVAMANASI M – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 44424 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.LUKE J CHIRAYIL, SMT.NEHA RAMAKRISHNAN, SHRI.ZAINUDHEEN P., SMT.ASWATHY KRISHNA M.P., SMT.CHITHRA C.EDADAN, SHRI.A.R.THEJAS KRISHNA, SHRI.JACOB VICTOR
For the Respondents: RAJEEV JYOTHIS GEORGE -GP
The appeal committees in school festivals are not statutory and are not bound to act with quasi-judicial diligence.
Headnote:The petitioner participated in the ‘Nadodi Nritham’ competition and appealed the dismissal of her results, claiming non-application of mind and discrimination. The court found the appeal process satisfactory, asserting Committees in school festivals are not statutory bodies. The appeal’s dismissal was deemed valid after reviewing procedural adherence and factual verification. Dismissal of the writ petition was ordered.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's dissatisfaction stemming from competition results. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments regarding discriminatory treatment and procedural issues in appeals. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's findings on the appeal committee's authority and procedural adherence. (Para 4) |
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2025 The petitioner participated in the ‘Nadodi Nritham’
competition in the Konni Sub District School Kalolsavam 2025-26 and was placed in the second position along with another contestant. Dissatisfied with the result, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which the Appeal Committee dismissed as per Exhibit P4. Hence, this writ petition.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned Exhibit P4 order is bad for non-application of mind as also violation of the guidelines pertaining to the conduct of School Kalolsavam. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel that the Appeal Committee acted in a discriminative manner by allowing the appeal of the other second placed student and rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is also contended that the order is issued in violation of the time stipulation of 5 days for the Appeal Committee for deciding the appeals.
3. Learned Government Pleader submits that instructions could not be obtained within the short time granted. It is contended that the appeal was dismissed after considering all relevant factors.
4. The Division Bench of this Court inAkash Chandran v. The General Convener & Director of Public Instructions (General) [ 2019 (1) KLT 455 ] has held that the Appeal Committees in school festivals are not statutory bodies and cannot be expected to pass orders like a quasi-judicial or administrative authority. It is also the settled law that the guidelines have no statutory force. This Court cannot also be oblivious of the tremendous pressure upon the teachers and officers of the Education Department who are manning the Appeal Committees and are involved in the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral roll conducted by the Election Commission of India as well as the elections to the local bodies notified to be conducted on 9th and 11th of December, 2025. Hence, the delay in issuing the appellate order or the failure to pass a detailed order cannot prompt this Court to intervene in exercise of the power under Article 226. Moreover, the impugned order was passed after verifying the score sheet, tabulation sheet and viewing the video of petitioner’s performance.
