Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58696
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.ARUN, J
NIDA SHERIN K – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43132 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ, SMT.JAHANA SHERIN.K
For the Respondents: SMT. AMMINIKUTTY
The court ruled that the Appeal Committee's decisions are not subject to quasi-judicial standards as they are non-statutory.
Headnote:The petitioner participated in a school competition and secured second place. Aggrieved by the results, the petitioner filed a writ petition which was dismissed. The court found no merit to interfere with the Appellate Committee's decision based on alleged bias. The committee was deemed non-statutory and not subjected to quasi-judicial standards. The petition was hence dismissed verbatim.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. participation and results in school competition. (Para 1) |
| 2. allegations of bias in marking. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's observation on the role of appeal committees. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT The petitioner participated in the ‘Mappilapattu’ (Girls-
High School Category) competition in the Areekode Sub- District Level School Kalolsavam and secured second position with 'A' grade. Aggrieved with the result, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which the Appeal Committee rejected as per Ext.P2. Hence, this Writ Petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had performed exceedingly well, and only because of the biased manner in which the marks were awarded, she was placed in second position. Attention is drawn to Exts. P3 and P4 series certificates to point out that the petitioner is a meritorious candidate. It is argued that if the video of petitioner’s performance is viewed, this Court will be convinced about the quality of her performance.
3. Learned Government pleader submits on instructions that there is twelve marks difference between the petitioner and the first placed student. It is submitted that the only allegation in the appeal was that the petitioner had performed well and marks awarded were not commensurate to her performance.
4. In spite of the appealing arguments advanced by the learned counsel, I find no reason to interfere with the Appellate decision. The judges having awarded the marks and the Appeal Committee having approved the same, it will be inappropriate for this Court to interfere by converting itself into a Second Appellate Authority. As far as the contention regarding absence of reasons is concerned, the Division Bench of this Court in Akash Chandran v. The General Convener and Director of Public Instructions (General) [2019 (1) KLT 455] has made it clear that the Appeal Committees of School Youth Festivals are not statutory committees and cannot therefore be expected to perform like quasi-judicial or administrative authorities.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
