[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Raya M.A vs State Of Kerala on 9 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
WP(C) No.860 of 2026 1
2026:KER:1570
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. 860 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
RAYA M.A
AGED 15 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN THOUFIYA.I.S, W/O
ABDUL RASHEED, C 2 ROYAL CHREST FLAT, CHULLIYODE
ROAD, KOTTOOLI P.O, KUTHIRAVATTOM, KOZHIKODE, PIN
- 673016
BY ADV SRI.S.R.SREEJITH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY OF GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE KERALA, PIN - 673001
3 APPEAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
KOZHIKODE REVENUE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM, KOZHIKODE,
JOINT COMMISSIONER, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695012
4 THE CONVENOR PROGRAMME COMMITTEE
KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2026, THEKKINKADU
MAIDAN. SWARAJ ROUND. THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
680306
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP
WP(C) No.860 of 2026 2
2026:KER:1570
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.860 of 2026 3
2026:KER:1570
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS,J
------------------------------------
WP(C) No.860 of 2026
------------------------------------
Dated this the 08th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner and her team participated in the event 'Chavittu
Nadakam' in the Kozhikkode District School Kalolsavam 2025-26.
They secured 3rd 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
her performance on the day of the event was par excellence and she
and her team ought to have been awarded the first place with 'A'
grade. Petitioner contended that the Judges erroneously placed them
in the third position which is required to be set aside and she and her
team be placed in the first place. It is also contended that the joints
between the carpets became loose and that if an opportunity is
granted to participate in the State Youth Festival, there is every
chance that the petitioner and her team may win the first prize.
4. The Appellate Authority had considered her contentions and
rejected the same after verifying the score sheets, Stage Manager's
2026:KER:1570
report, videograph and also the evaluation sheet. The Appellate
Authority also noted that there is no merit in the contentions urged.
However the Appellate Authority has not referred to the specific
contentions regarding the loosening of the joint of the carpet. But
that itself may not be a reason in the peculiar circumstance of the
case to interfere with the impugned order.
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 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
2026:KER:1570
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 judgments 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.
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
pm
2026:KER:1570
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 860 OF 2026
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE LIST ISSUED BY
THE PROGRAM CONVENOR DATED 28.11.2025
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STAGE MANAGER DIARY
DATED 28.11.2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
C2/5390/2025/D.D.E.K.K.D DATED
04.12.2025 ISSUED BY THE THIRD
RESPONDENT
