Shalu.S vs State Of Kerala

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

The petitioners herein are X standard students pursuing their education at the Chemmanthoor High School, Punalur. They participated in the Punalur Sub District Schools Sasthrolsavam 2022-2023, and their presentation was a “Still Model” in the Social Science Subject. They contend that their item was displayed on 22.10.2022, and the results were declared at 7.00 p.m on the same day. They were aghast to note that they were awarded only a ‘C’ Grade.

The petitioners contend that though their presentation was well made, the evaluators awarded very low marks, and they were relegated to the 3rd position. In the said circumstances, they are stated to have preferred an appeal before the Appeal Committee.

The Appeal Committee, without considering the matter on its merits, dismissed the appeal by Exhibit P6 order. According to the petitioners, none of the relevant aspects were considered by the Appeal Committee.

It is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exhibit P6 and also for a direction to the 4th respondent to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioners. They have also sought for issuance of direction to the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioners to participate in the forthcoming Kollam Revenue District Schools Science, Social Science, Mathematics Work Experience and Vocational Expo - 2022-23 at Kottarakkara for ‘Still Model’ (Social Science) scheduled to be held on 03.11.2022.

I have heard Sri.Manoj Ramaswamy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

Sri. Manoj Ramaswamy submitted that the petitioners are brilliant students, and if their model was evaluated in a fair and transparent manner, they would certainly have secured the top grade. The learned counsel would refer to Ext.P6 order, and it is submitted that even the Appeal Committee was impressed with the presentation but went on to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the evaluation score was less.

In response, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the evaluation was made by a group of expert teachers keeping in mind various parameters. The teachers, on evaluation of all the models on display, proceeded to award the highest grade for the best presentation. Relying on Exhibit P6 order, it is submitted that the students who secured Grade-1 had scored more than 105 marks than what was secured by the petitioners. It is further submitted that this Court will not be justified in overturning the marks awarded by expert teachers in a petition of this nature.

I have considered the submissions advanced. On going through the records, I find that the topic selected by the petitioners was Urban Development - Waste Disposal and Sustainable Development. I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioners deserve an encomium for highlighting the environmental degradation and suggesting ways to remedy the situation. I only wish that those in power imbibed the vision of the children and made earnest efforts to ensure that the problems with regard to waste disposal are adequately addressed.

At the same time, I find that the petitioners are before this Court complaining that the marks awarded by the evaluators to them are very low. I do not think that those are matters which can be taken up and disposed of by this Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The evaluation of a model may depend upon various factors and criteria, and this Court is not equipped to decide the marks which are to be awarded. The models of the students who had secured higher grades are also not before this Court, and it is next to impossible to display all of them together and to re-adjudicate the same. Furthermore, except for stating that the Judges were negligent in awarding marks, no other reason is stated.

The Apex Court has held time and time again that the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of the actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view, as opposed to a pragmatic one, were to be propounded (See Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors. [(1984) 4 SCC 27].

I am of the view that the petitioners have not made out any case for interference. The Court has no expertise in the matter, and academic matters are best left to academics. The petitioners may continue with their efforts and endeavors, and I am sure that their persistence and perseverance will lead them to reap success in the future. All they can do is strive for their best to achieve success. I do not think that they need to be disgruntled or sad for not making it to the District Level.

This writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.