[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Priya Chandran C vs State Of Kerala on 9 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2026:KER:1446
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. 48674 OF 2025
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
PRIYA CHANDRAN C
AGED 52 YEARS
M/O BHAVYA B PANICKER,
KATTATHIL-HOUSE, PURAMATTAM P.O
PATHANAMTHITTA-DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 689543
BY ADVS.
SHRI.VISHNU G.
SMT.SUNITHA K.G.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
ROOM NO 206, SOUTH SANDWICH BLOCK,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-KERALA, PIN - 695001
2 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (DDE)
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF GENERAL
EDUCATION, PADMAVILASOM ROAD, FORT P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695023
BY ADV. B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:1446
W.P(C) No.48674 of 2025
-:2:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P(C) No.48674 of 2025
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the event 'Mohiniyattam' in the
Pathanamthitta District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. She was placed in
the fourth place with 'A' Grade. Aggrieved by the evaluation
conducted, she preferred an appeal. By Exhibit-P2 order dated
17.12.2025 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 Judges were not qualified to judge the event and also that the
mandatory guidelines were not followed. It was also submitted that her
performance on the day of the event was par excellence and that she
ought to have been awarded the first place with A grade. Petitioner
contended that the Judges erroneously placed her in the fourth position
which is required to be set aside and she be placed in the first place.
4. The Appellate Authority had considered her contentions
and rejected the same after verifying the score sheets, Stage Manager's
report, videograph and also the evaluation sheet. The Appellate
Authority also noted that there was a difference of 13 marks between
2026:KER:1446
the first place holder and the petitioner and that the performance on
the day of the event was not up to the mark as claimed by her. The
contention regarding the qualification of the Judges was never raised
before the Appellate Authority, and the same is taken up for the first
time before this Court and hence, it cannot be considered in this writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
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
2026:KER:1446
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 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
jka/09.01.26.
2026:KER:1446
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 48674 OF 2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 AADHAR CARD OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit-P2 ORDER COPY OF ORDER NO.
C4/2104/2025/DDEPTA (35) DATED
17.12.2025, PASSED BY THE APPELLATE
AUTHORITY
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATE AND DISTRICT
LEVEL ART FESTIVAL CERTIFICATES
Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA STATE SCHOOL ART
FESTIVAL MANUAL
Exhibit-P5 COMPLAINT DATED 26-11-2025 TO THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND
ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, PATHANAMTHITTA.
