[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Anush Sajith Represented By His ... vs State Of Kerala on 9 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
WP(C) NO. 398 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:1532
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. 398 OF 2026
PETITIONER :
ANUSH SAJITH REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN
SAJITH K, AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O RAJAN K,VADOOR MEETHAL HOUSE,
KUTHIRAVATTOM P.O, KOZHIKKODE,
KERALA, PIN - 673016
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS
SHRI.SANTHOSH SUBRAMANIAN
SHRI.SREEKUMAR S
SRI.RENISH RAVEENDRAN
SRI.JOEMON ANTONY
SHRI.ANTONY NILTON REMELO
SMT.ANJANA P.V.
RESPONDENTS :
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR
GENERAL EDUCAITON DEPARTMENT,
JAGATHI, THIRUVANATHAPURAM,
WP(C) NO. 398 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:1532
PIN - 695014
3 THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
KERALA REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL
KALOLSAVAM 2025-2026,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL CO-ORDINATOR/
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE DISTRICT LEVEL APPEAL COMMITTEE
THE KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM -
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT REPRESENTED
BY ITS CHAIRMAN/THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 680003
5 THE DEPUTY DIRECTIOR OF EDUCATION
MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, KERALA,
PIN - 673001
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. 398 OF 2026
3
2026:KER:1532
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.398 of 2026
---------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the event 'Mookabhinayam'
in the Kozhikode District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. He secured
the 3rd place with 'A' Grade. Aggrieved by the evaluation
conducted, he preferred an appeal. By Ext.P6 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 the mat placed on the stage became loose as a result of which
the students' performance was affected. Petitioner contended that
the Judges erroneously placed him in the 3rd 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. 398 OF 2026
2026:KER:1532
and rejected the same after verifying the score sheets, Stage
Manager's report, videograph and also the evaluation sheet. The
Appellate Authority also came to the conclusion that the contentions
urged by the petitioner has no merit.
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. Even though the petitioner contended relying upon the
photographs in Ext.P7 that the mat put on the stage became loose,
I am of the view that since the Appellate Authority had viewed the
videograph of the event and did not find any reason to interfere, it
is not proper for this Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to come to a different conclusion.
WP(C) NO. 398 OF 2026
2026:KER:1532
It was also pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the
difference between the first place winner and the petitioner was 'six
marks'. 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 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
WP(C) NO. 398 OF 2026
2026:KER:1532
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.
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. 398 OF 2026
2026:KER:1532
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 398 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TABULATION SHEET
DATED 26/11/2025, FOR THE EVENT
MOOKABHINAYAM, BEARING CODE NUMBER 985
Exhibit P2 THE BIODATA OF JUDGE NO.1 WHO ADJUDGED THE
EVENT
Exhibit P3 THE BIODATA OF JUDGE NO.2 WHO ADJUDGED THE
EVENT
Exhibit P4 THE BIODATA OF JUDGE NO.3 WHO ADJUDGED THE
EVENT
Exhibit P5 THE STAGE MANAGER'S DIARY DATED 26/11/2025
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL DATED
4/12/2025, ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 THE SCREENSHOT OF THE STAGE WHICH IS
CAPTURED FROM THE VIDEO FOOTAGE
