[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Vedhika Rajesh Nambiar vs Director Of General Education on 9 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
WP(C) NO. 524 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:1468
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 19TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 524 OF 2026
PETITIONER :
VEDHIKA RAJESH NAMBIAR
AGED 16 YEARS
D/O RAJESH, SWASTHI PUTHENPURAYIL,
PURAMERI P.O, PURAMERI, KOZHIKODE,
KERALA, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER;
SHERINA.M, AGED 45 YEARS,
W/O RAJESH, SWASTHI PUTHENPURAYIL,
PURAMERI P.O, PURAMERI, KOZHIKODE,
KERALA, PIN - 673503
BY ADV SRI.A.K.MANU
RESPONDENTS :
1 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
O/O THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695014
2 KALOLSAVAM COMMITTEE CONVENER
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
O/O THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF
GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
O/O THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, KERALA,
WP(C) NO. 524 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:1468
PIN - 673001
4 CHAIRMAN APPEAL COMMITTEE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
O/O DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, KERALA,
PIN - 673001
BY SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 524 OF 2026
3
2026:KER:1468
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.524 of 2026
---------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the event 'Nadodi Nrutham
(Girls)-HSS General' in the Kozhikode District School Kalolsavam
2025-26. She was placed in the 2 nd place with 'A' Grade. Aggrieved
by the evaluation conducted, she preferred an appeal. By Ext. P3
order dated 04.12.2025, the appeal was rejected against which this
writ petition has been preferred.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as the learned Government Pleader.
3. The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is
that there was a problem with the CD that was played during the
event. Petitioner contended that the Judges erroneously placed her
in the 2nd position which is required to be set aside and she be
placed in the first place.
4. The Appellate Authority had considered her contentions
WP(C) NO. 524 OF 2026
2026:KER:1468
and rejected the same after verifying the score sheets, Stage
Manager's report, videograph and also the evaluation sheet. It was
found by the Appellate Authority that there is no merit in the
contentions urged.
5. Interference with the evaluation of a performance or the
order of the Appellate Authority cannot be subjected to challenge in
a writ petition, unless there are exceptional reasons. The
contention that on the day of the event the performance of the
petitioner was par excellence, is not a matter which can be
appreciated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. This Court does not have the expertise in appreciating or
evaluating performing arts and cannot assess the performance of
the candidates.
6. The problem that allegedly arose in connection with the
CD played during the performance cannot be attributed to the
defect of organisers and the same is not a reason for this Court to
interfere. The evaluation of marks in an event, especially that
relating to performing arts, is always relative in nature. Even if one
of the performers could be the best in the field, still, on a particular
WP(C) NO. 524 OF 2026
2026:KER:1468
day, the quality of performance can vary. Only the judges who
actually evaluate the event at the time, would be able to assimilate
the nature of the performance. This Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is not an expert to judge or evaluate the
performance of the candidates to come to a conclusion regarding
the relative merits of the participants of an event. It is in such
circumstances that Courts have repeatedly held that the High Court
cannot take the place of an expert and arrive at a conclusion
different from that arrived at by the expert bodies.
7. In the decisions in Sweety v. State of Kerala [1994
KHC 216] and in Devna Sumesh v. State of Kerala [2022 KHC
8081] apart from the Division Bench judgment in Manas Manohar
v. Registrar, Kerala Lok Ayuktha and Others [2022 (5) KHC
479] and Additional Director of Public Instructions and Others
v. Anagha and Others (2022 (5) KHC 473), it has been observed
that this Court would not be justified in interfering with the
assessment of performance or the order of the Appellate Committee
in exercise of the discretionary power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, in the absence of any exceptional reasons.
WP(C) NO. 524 OF 2026
2026:KER:1468
8. Since I have already concluded that there are no
exceptional reasons pointed out to interfere with the impugned
order of the Appellate Authority, I find no merit in this writ petition.
The writ petition is hence dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE
RKM
WP(C) NO. 524 OF 2026
2026:KER:1468
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 524 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MARK SHEET ISSUED BY THE
PROGRAMME CONVENOR DATED 27.11.2025
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BEFORE
THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED
27.11.2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DISMISSING THE
PETITIONER'S APPEAL BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
DATED 04.12.2025.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAGE MANAGER'S DIARY OF
THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT LEVEL SCHOOL
KALOLSAVAM 2025-26 DATED NIL.
