Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56522
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.ARUN, J
THEERTHA P.A – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 44428 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SANIL KUNJACHAN, SMT.PRIYANKA M.D
For the Respondents: RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE -GP
Appeal Committees in school festivals are not statutory bodies and lack the obligations of quasi-judicial authority.
Headnote:In the present case, the petitioner participated in the 'Nadodi Nrutham' competition and appealed against the decision of the Appeal Committee, which dismissed the appeal. The Court determined that the Appeal Committee is not a statutory body and the guidelines lack statutory force (Akash Chandran v. The General Convener & Director of Public Instructions [2019 (1) KLT 455]). It noted the considerations involved, including the pressure on education officials, and found no grounds for intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was thus dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner placed second in the competition. (Para 1) |
| 2. contention surrounding the rejection of the appeal. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. discussion on appeal committee's nature and guidelines. (Para 4) |
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2025 The petitioner participated in the ‘Nadodi Nrutham’
competition in the Thripunithura Sub District School Kalolsavam 2025-26 and was placed in the second position. Dissatisfied with the result, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which the Appeal Committee dismissed as per Exhibit P2. Hence, this writ petition.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned Exhibit P2 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 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 deciding the appeal.
3. Learned Government Pleader submits that instructions could not be obtained within the short time granted and also contends 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 the 9th and 11th of December, 2025. Hence, delay in issuing the appellate order or failure to pass a detailed order cannot prompt this Court to intervene in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the impugned order was passed after hearing the petitioner, viewing the video of her performance as also the difference in marks between the petitioner and the contestant in the first place.
