[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Theertha Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
WP(C) NO. 1062 OF 2026
-:1:-
2026:KER:1703
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. 1062 OF 2026
PETITIONERS:
THEERTHA RAJESH
AGED 15 YEARS
VATTAMALAYIL, MULLARIKUDY, KONNATHADY
P.O,UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
FATHER, RAJESH V. S, AGED 46 YEARS, VATTAMALAYIL,
MULLARIKUDY, KONNATHADY P.O,UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI,
KERALA, PIN - 685571
BY ADVS.
SRI.ARUN FRANCIS
SMT.DEENA JOSEPH
SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN K.
SHRI.AKHIL SHAJI
SHRI.BASIL SAJAN
SMT.NANDA SURENDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO EDUCATIONAL
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE GENERAL CONVENOR
KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2025-26, THRISSUR,
KERALA, PIN - 680001
3 THE CONVENOR
IDUKKI DISTRICT KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2024-25,
MURICKASSERY,, PIN - 685604
WP(C) NO. 1062 OF 2026
-:2:-
2026:KER:1703
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER
IDUKKI, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685584
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:
WP(C) NO. 1062 OF 2026
-:3:-
2026:KER:1703
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 1062 of 2026
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the event 'Folk Dance' in
the Idukki District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. She secured
second place with A grade. Aggrieved by the evaluation
conducted, she preferred an appeal. By Ext.P2 order dated
16.12.2025, 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 Folk Dance performance on the day of the event was par
excellence and she ought to have been awarded first place with A
grade. Petitioner contended that the Judges erroneously placed
her in a wrong position due to a faulty evaluation, which is
required to be set aside and she be placed in the first place.
4. The Appellate Authority considered her contentions
and rejected the challenge. The appellate authority came to such
WP(C) NO. 1062 OF 2026
2026:KER:1703
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 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 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. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed
out that the petitioner had stepped on her skirt during the
performance, the appellate authority, while dismissing the appeal
as per Ext.P2, specifically observed that the same did not affect
her balance or the 'thalam'. Even otherwise the defect pointed out
was not that of the organisers, but can only be attributed to a
mistake of the petitioner, which cannot be a reason to interfere
WP(C) NO. 1062 OF 2026
2026:KER:1703
with the evaluation.
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 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
WP(C) NO. 1062 OF 2026
2026:KER:1703
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
bng
WP(C) NO. 1062 OF 2026
2026:KER:1703
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 1062 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 20.11.2025
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
IDUKKI DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM APPEAL
COMMITTEE DATED 16.12.2025
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE SECURED
BY THE PETITIONER IN NADODI NIRTHAM IN
63RD KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2024 - 25
DATED 08.01.2025
