[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rishika P.Sreejith (Minor), Rep. By Her ... vs Deputy Director Of Education on 12 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2026:KER:1946
WP(C) NO. 48760 OF 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 22ND POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 48760 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
RISHIKA P.SREEJITH (MINOR), REP. BY HER FATHER
SREEJITH PODUVAL (SREEJITH A.K.)
AGED 15 YEARS
RESIDING AT UNRA 1 ELIPODE, THIRUMALA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695006.
BY ADVS.
SRI.LIJOY P.VARGHESE
SMT.MISHAL M.DASAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
PADMAVILASAM ROAD, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695023.
2 GENERAL CONVENOR
KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2025-26, IN THE STATE
LEVEL, (STATE SCHOOL ARTS FESTIVAL), OFFICE OF
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PADMAVILASAM
ROAD, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695023.
3 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014.
4 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695001.
2026:KER:1946
WP(C) NO. 48760 OF 2025 2
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:1946
WP(C) NO. 48760 OF 2025 1
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO.48760 OF 2026
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner's team was a participant in the event 'Drama'
in the Thiruvananthapuram District School Kalolsavam 2025-26.
Aggrieved by the evaluation conducted, she preferred an
appeal. By Ext.P5 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 Drama performance on the day of the event
was par excellence and her team ought to have been awarded
first place with A grade. Petitioner contended that the Judges
erroneously placed her team in a wrong position due to a faulty
evaluation, which is required to be set aside and her team be
placed in the first place. The learned counsel for the petitioner
also contended that the Appellate Committee did not evaluate
the performance of the first place winner, using the same
yardstick as that used for the petitioner's team at the appellate
2026:KER:1946
stage and hence the impugned order is totally flouted.
4. The appellate authority considered her contentions
and rejected the challenge. The appellate authority came to
such a conclusion after verifying the score sheets, Stage
Manager's report, videograph and also the evaluation sheet. The
appellate authority also noted that the performance on the day
of the event of the petitioner's team was not up to the mark as
that of the first place holder.
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's team 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 contention based on wrong evaluation by the
appellate authority is not legally tenable. The objections raised
by the petitioner were referred to and after analysing the video
and the performance of the first prize winner as well as the
2026:KER:1946
petitioner, it was found that there was no error in the
evaluation. It cannot be demanded that the appellate authority
must re-evaluate performance of the first prize winner in every
aspect with that of the petitioner's team and decide on each of
those aspects as if it is re-judging the performance itself.
Considering the scope of interference and the nature of
challenge raised, I am of the view that it is not proper for this
Court to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
7. 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
2026:KER:1946
by the expert bodies.
8. 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.
9. Since 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
DSV/12.01.2026
2026:KER:1946
WP(C) NO. 48760 OF 2025 5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 48760 OF 2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
ExhibitP1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM
DATED 12.11.2025.
Exhibit-P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.52
DATED 12.11.2025 FOR FEE RS.2,000/-
PAID FOR APPEAL NO.36/20225/SUB.
Exhibit-P3 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER
NO.B1/1274/2025/DEOTVM DATED 20.11.2025
IN APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER (CODE
NO.315) ALONG WITH TYPED COPY
Exhibit-P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.54
DATED 2.12.2025 FOR FEE RS.5,000/- PAID
FOR APPEAL
Exhibit-P5 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER
NO.C(4)/5045/2025 DATED 12.12.2025 IN
APPEAL NO.054 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
(CODE NO.315)
