Govind G.S. (Minor) and others v State of Kerala and others

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 21[ST]DAY OF JULY 2022 / 30TH ASHADHA,1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 23231 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1GOVIND G.S. (MINOR), AGED 17 YEARS REP. BY HIS FATHER GOPA KUMAR A., KEEZHAKEKUNNUVILA, THOZHIKAL, NTA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695121 2VINAYAK A.G. (MINOR), AGED 16 YEARS REP. BY HIS FATHER, GIREESH A.D. ARUKATT HOUSE, VAVAKKAD, MOOTHAKUNNAM P.O., NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683516 3THRIDEEP KRISHNA V.D. (MINOR), REP. BY HIS FATHER DEEPU V.S., AGED 15 YEARS VADAPURATH HOUSE, KANDAMKULAM P.O., METHALA, KODUNGALLUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 680669 4PARTHIB RAJESH (MINOR), REP. BY HIS FATHER RAJESH A.K. AGED 15 YEARS ASHARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAKKAD, MAMALA P.O., THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682305 5AISHWARYA ANIL. (MINOR), REP. BY HER FATHER ANIL KUMAR O.D., AGED 17 YEARS ODASSERIL HOUSE, MADAPLATHURUTH, MOOTHAKUNNAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT , PIN - 683516 6ANJALI RAJESH (MINOR), REP. BY HIS FATHER RAJESH K.L. AGED 17 YEARS KOTHARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMBADIMALA, CHOTTANIKKARA, THIRUVANKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682305 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 23231 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SUNIL V.MOHAMMED MANOJ N. AJITHA APPU M.S.NEETHUMOL AADIL SHAH A.S. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY FOR SPORTS AND YOUTH AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 3DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 69500 4DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF SPORTS AND YOUTH AFFAIRS JIMMY GEORGE INDOOR STADIUM, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010 ``` ``` SMT ANIMA M GP ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON21.07.2022,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 23231 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners claim that they are outstanding Ball Badminton Players. They have approached this Court seeking directions to the respondents to award grace marks to the petitioners based on their proficiency in the sports, as is evidenced by Ext.P1 to P6 certificates. 2. Brief facts are as under: The petitioners contend that they are Ball Badminton players. Competitions in the State are held by the Kerala State Ball Badminton Association (‘KSBBA’ for the sake of brevity), which is affiliated to the Ball Badminton Federation of India. They contend that they have participated in the District as well as State Level competitions held by the Association and they have achieved laurels. It is contended that a good number of school days were lost by the petitioners for training as well as participation and they legitimately expected that the respondents would provide them with grace marks while joining for Plus One course. In the said circumstances, they have submitted Ext.P7 to P9 representations before the respondents. However, no action has been taken. In the meantime, admission to the Plus One course was notified, and options have been called for. They contend that while considering the options submitted by the petitioner, the grace marks to which they are entitled have to be reckoned. However, they ``` WP(C) NO. 23231 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` contend that the respondents are now taking a stand that as the Education Department has not conducted any Sports and Games Competitions during the academic year 2021-2022, no grace marks can be granted. The petitioners contend that the Ball Badminton Championship is conducted by the Association, and the objection presently raised cannot be sustained. They also rely on Ext.P12 judgment rendered by this Court to contend that rights and privileges of Sports persons as provided under the Kerala Sports Act and Rules are to be protected and grace marks are to be granted. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking directions. 3. As the notification for admission to the Plus One Course has been announced and options have been called for, this writ petition is taken up for consideration and final disposal. 4. On instructions, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the State has taken a policy decision not to award any grace marks to any category of students as the Education Department has not conducted any competition. A copy of G.O. (M.S.) No. 3563/2022/G.Edn. dated 14.06.2022 is made available to substantiate her contention. The said order is not under challenge in this writ petition, contends the learned Government Pleader. ``` WP(C) NO. 23231 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` 5. Sri. Sunil V. Mohammed, the learned counsel would point out that a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 26.8.2021 in W.P.(C) No.13763/2021, had occasion to consider the challenge raised against the decision not to award grace marks for the general examinations in the academic year 2020-2021 and it was held that it was owing to the fact that there was no organized extracurricular activity, and the classes were held online, the action of the Government in not granting grace marks cannot be fault with. However, during the last academic year, the classes commenced from the 1st of November, 2021 onwards. Furthermore, the petitioners have excelled in District Level and State Level competitions. 6. I have considered the submissions. 7. The petitioners have approached this Court on 14.7.2022 seeking grant of grace marks to the petitioners based on their proficiency in Exhibit P1 to P6. The Government has come out with G.O. (M.S.) No. 3563/2022/G.Edn. dated 14.06.2022 as per which a policy decision has been taken not to grant grace marks. The said order is not under challenge in this Writ Petition. 8. Further, a Bench of this Court while considering the grievances of students like the petitioners, who had approached this Court during the previous year had rejected their request holding as follows in paragraph No. 24 and 25 of the judgment dated 26.8.2021 in W.P.(C) No.13763/2021: ``` WP(C) NO. 23231 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` 24. We have also evaluated the circumstances leading to the extraordinary results of the terminal examinations and the manner in which the question papers were set taking into account the present precarious situations of the pandemic. Therefore, indeed the State Government was conscious of the difficulties faced by the student community as a whole without carving out any exception, and viewed in those circumstances we are of the view that the Government was right in taking the decision not to grant grace marks. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any arbitrary, illegal or unfair action on the part of the Government in withdrawing the benefit extended to the students. There is no case for the petitioners that there was any malafide intention to withdraw the concession of grace marks offered to the students participating in the extracurricular activities in question. Moreover, we are also the considered opinion that the pass percentage and the marks secured by the students in the academic year 2020-2021 would clearly show that such high marks and percentage could be secured due to the peculiar examination pattern adopted by the Government referred to in the discussions made above, which in our considered opinion, was taking into account the difficulties faced the student community as a whole consequent to the pandemic and with the bonafide intention of helping them to withstand the extraordinary situation. 25. Above all these aspects, the State Government have decided to provide bonus marks to the specific class of students while they are seeking admission to higher classes in the pattern and formula discussed, and in that view of the matter also, it can never be said that any manner of prejudice is caused to such students, who were entitled to secure the benefits of the Government Orders . Moreover, it is for the Government to decide the manner in which the interests of such students are to be protected and once their admissions to higher classes are taken care of by awarding bonus marks no manner of illegality or arbitrariness can be imputed against the State especially due to the fact that it is for the State to take stock of the situation prevailing and act ``` WP(C) NO. 23231 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` accordingly so as to avoid any arbitrariness among the student community. This we say also bearing in mind the fact that the State could achieve very high percentage of pass and high marks when compared to the previous academic year and therefore, if any further marks are awarded to a smaller group of student community, it may seriously prejudice the other larger student community, competing for higher studies on the basis of marks alone. It is also worthwhile to note that the grace marks were withdrawn only for the academic year 2020-2021. 9. The policy decision taken by the Government after considering all relevant aspects is not under challenge in this writ petition. The options for admissions to the Plus One course was called for on 11.7.2022, much after the issuance of the Government Order relied on by the learned Government Pleader. The writ petition was filed only on 14.7.2022. 10. The scope of judicial review of Governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability, and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy to which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or is manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a ``` WP(C) NO. 23231 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. The legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review (vide **Asif Hameed v. State of J&K** [1989 Supp (2) SCC 364], **Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India** [(1990) 3 SCC 223], **Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka** [(1996) 10 SCC 304], **BALCO Employees' Union v. Union of India** [(2002) 2 SCC 333], **State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash** [(2005) 13 SCC 495] and **Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh (3) v. State of A.P.** [(2006) 4 SCC 162)]. In view of the principles above, the petitioners have not made out any case for interference. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere. This writ petition will stand dismissed. ## **Sd/-** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **JUDGE** ``` avs ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 23231 OF 2022 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23231/2022`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE MERIT CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE BALL BADMINTON ASSOCIATION ``` ``` Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE MERIT CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE BALL BADMINTON ASSOCIATION Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE MERIT CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE BALL BADMINTON ASSOCIATION ``` ``` Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE MERIT CERTIFICATE OF THE 4TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE BALL BADMINTON ASSOCIATION Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE MERIT CERTIFICATE OF THE 5TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE BALL BADMINTON ASSOCIATION ``` - `Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MERIT CERTIFICATE OF THE 6TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE BALL BADMINTON ASSOCIATION` ``` Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 Exhibit P9TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER Exhibit P10TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 27.06.2022 SEND BY THE SPORTS DEPARTMENT Exhibit P11TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 27.06.2022 SEND BY THE SPORTS DEPARTMENT Exhibit P12TRUE COPY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT DATED 10.04.2015 IN WP(C) NO. 33817/2014 ```