[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Shibin. B vs State Of Kerala on 9 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2026:KER:1267
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. 769 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
SHIBIN. B
AGED 17 YEARS
(MINOR) S/O. BALACHANDRAN PILLAI, CLASS XII,
GHANANDAPURAM H.S.S, CHAVARA SOUTH, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, RESIDING AT THENGUVECHA VILAYIL HOUSE,
MALI BHAGAM, THEKKUMBHAGAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN,
SMT. SHEELAKUMARI, W/O. BALACHANDRAN PILLA,
THENGUVECHA VILAYIL HOUSE, MALI BHAGAM,
THEKKUMBHAGAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691319
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SRI.BIJILY JOSEPH
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SMT.ELSA DENNY PINDIS
SRI.MATHEW K.T.
SRI.GEORGE K.V.
SRI.ADITHYA BENZEER
SMT.MEDHA B.S.
SRI.AHMED ARHAM E.A.
SRI.JOHN ZACHARIAH DOMINIC
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2025 -2026, REP. BY ITS
GENERAL CO-ORDINATOR/DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2026:KER:1267
WP(C) NO. 769 OF 2026
2
3 THE CHAIRMAN
HIGHER APPEAL COMMITTEE FOR KERALA SCHOOL
KALOTHSAVAM 2025-2026, DDE, EMPLOYMENT
CHAIRPERSON, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION, THEVALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691009
4 THE PROGRAMME CONVENOR - PROGRAMME COMMITTEE/
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
DDE OFFICE, THEVALLY POST, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691009
SMT.AMMINIKUTTY K., 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:1267
WP(C) NO. 769 OF 2026
3
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
==================
W.P.(C) No.769 of 2026
==================
Dated this the 9th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the event 'Bharathanatyam'
in the Kollam Revenue District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. He
was placed in the third place with 'A' Grade. Aggrieved by the
evaluation conducted, he preferred an appeal. By Ext.P1 order
dated 10.12.2025, 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 there was no feedback speaker on the stage and that since
the carpet was loose, the petitioner slipped and almost fell down.
It was also urged that a pin from the carpet had pierced his leg.
According to the petitioner, his performance on the day of the
event was par excellence and he ought to have been awarded the
first place with A grade. Petitioner contended that the Judges
erroneously placed him in the third position which is required to
2026:KER:1267
WP(C) NO. 769 OF 2026
be set aside and he be placed in the first place.
4. The Appellate Authority had considered his 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 the technical defects pointed
out by the petitioner in the appeal was not valid even after
viewing the videograph of the event.
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 technical defect pointed out by the petitioner was
verified by the appellate authority after viewing the videograph.
The appellate authority consisted of an expert as well and they
did not find any defect as alleged. The evaluation of marks in an
event, especially that relating to performing arts, is always
2026:KER:1267
WP(C) NO. 769 OF 2026
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] 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
2026:KER:1267
WP(C) NO. 769 OF 2026
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
NP
2026:KER:1267
WP(C) NO. 769 OF 2026
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 769 OF 2026
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING NO. C2/2475/2025
DTD. 10.12.2025 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL
