[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Gouri Nanda.G.M vs The General Convenor on 9 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2026:KER:1417
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. 108 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
GOURI NANDA.G.M.
AGED 17 YEARS
12TH STD. (PLUS TWO) GOVERNMENT VOCATIONAL HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
(THROUGH FATHER/GUARDIAN, GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR), RESIDING AT CHOTHIS,
VADAKKE GRAMAM TEMPLE ROAD, PARASSALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
SRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.T.S.BHARATH KRISHNA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE GENERAL CONVENOR
(DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION) KERALA STATE
SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM-2025-2026 THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
DIRECOT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE GENERAL CONVENOR
(DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION),
KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAN 2025-2026
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISRICT, PIN - 695036
4 THE APPELLATE COMMITTEE
KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM-2025-2026
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695036
2026:KER:1417
WP(C) NO. 108 OF 2026
2
5 AMRITHA SUNIL
12TH STANDARD ST-TERESAS H.S.S., NEYYATTINKARA,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNAKAIMAL, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:1417
WP(C) NO. 108 OF 2026
3
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
==================
W.P.(C) No.108 of 2026
==================
Dated this the 9th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the event 'Mohiniyattam' in
the Thiruvananthapuram District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. She
was placed in the third place with 'A' Grade. Aggrieved by the
evaluation conducted, she preferred an appeal. By Ext.P9 order
dated 12.12.2025, 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 ought to have been awarded the first place with A grade.
Petitioner contended that the judges erroneously placed her in the
third position which is required to be set aside and that she ought
to be placed in the first place.
4. The Appellate Authority had considered her contentions
and rejected the same after verifying the score sheets, Stage
2026:KER:1417
WP(C) NO. 108 OF 2026
Manager's report, videograph and also the evaluation sheet. The
Appellate Authority also noted that there was a difference of 7
marks between 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.
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
2026:KER:1417
WP(C) NO. 108 OF 2026
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.
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.
2026:KER:1417
WP(C) NO. 108 OF 2026
The writ petition is hence dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
NP
2026:KER:1417
WP(C) NO. 108 OF 2026
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 108 OF 2026
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
05-12-2023 IN W.P.(C) NO.40463/2023
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE AWARDED
TO THE PETITIONER IN THE DISTRICT SCHOOL
FESTIVAL CERTIFICATE DATED 08-12-2023
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED
IN KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY DATED 08.12.2023
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24-07-
2024 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA
SANGEETHA NATAKA ACADEMY
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
31-12-2024 IN W.P.(C) 45984/2024
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 08-
01-2025 OF THE STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM
2024-2025, ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN
THE EVENT `BHARATANATYAM'
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 06-
01-2025 OF THE KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM
FOR THE YEAR 2024-2025 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER IN THE EVENT `KUCHIPPUDI'
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATE LEVEL ENTRY
PASS ISSUED IN THE ITEM
`MOHINIYATTAM', TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
12.12.2025 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE
AUTHORITY
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.C(4)/5045/2025 DATED 12.12.2025
ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN APPEAL COMMITTEE
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL
