[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Muhamed Rep By His Mother Thahira Rafeek vs State Of Kerala on 9 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
WP(C) No.47566 of 2025 1
2026:KER:1612
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. 47566 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MUHAMED REP BY HIS MOTHER THAHIRA RAFEEK
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O RAFEEK, POTTERI, KIDANHI, PERINGATHUR PO,
KANNUR, KERALA, PIN - 670675
BY ADVS.
SHRI.BAJEEL ABDUL RAHIMAN
SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENTSECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 695001
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
DPI JUNCTION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 695014
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KANNUR
DDE OFFICE, GOVT. TTI FOR MEN COMPOUND, KANNUR,
PIN - 670002
4 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOLLAM
THE CHAIRMAN APPEAL COMMITTEE, KANNUR REVENUE
DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM, DDE OFFICE KANNUR,
KANNUR, PIN - 670002
5 64TH KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2025-26
COMMITTEE REP BY CONVENOR
DDE OFFICE THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION, AYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
WP(C) No.47566 of 2025 2
2026:KER:1612
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.GP
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.47566 of 2025 3
2026:KER:1612
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS,J
------------------------------------
WP(C) No.47566 of 2025
------------------------------------
Dated this the 08th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the event 'Vattappattu' in the
Kannur District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. His team secured
second place with 'A' Grade. Aggrieved by the evaluation conducted,
he preferred an appeal. By Ext.P5 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 sound from the mike got reduced and their team's sound
could not come out in full which had affected their performance.
4. The Appellate Authority had considered the contentions
and rejected the same after verifying the score sheets, Stage
Manager's report, videograph and also the evaluation sheet. The
report of the Stage Manager specifically mentioned that there was no
defect in the light and sound provided in the stage, which was relied
upon by the Appellate Authority to come to the conclusion that there
was no merit in the appeal filed by the petitioner.
5. Interference with the evaluation of a performance or the
WP(C) No.47566 of 2025 4
2026:KER:1612
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 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]
2026:KER:1612
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
WP(C) No.47566 of 2025 6
2026:KER:1612
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 47566 OF 2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE
07/01/2025 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN
THE 63RD KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM
2024-25.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PARTICIPANTS
CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IS
PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS
EXHIBIT:- P2.
Exhibit P3 USB CONTAINED THE PERFORMANCES OF THE
FIRST PRIZE WINNER AND THE PETITIONER
SCHOOL
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR
APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL COMMITTEE
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/12/2025
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
