[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Asif Ali P.M vs Chairman , Appeal Committee, Ernakulam ... on 12 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
WP(C) NO. 1035 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:1743
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. 1035 OF 2026
PETITIONER :
ASIF ALI P.M
AGED 17 YEARS
MINOR, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN - FATHER,
MANSOOR ALI P.A.,S/O ALYAR,
PARANAYIL HOUSE, VENGOLA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683556
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANSOOR ALI
SHRI.MUHAMMED SUHAIL P.A.
RESPONDENTS :
1 CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE, ERNAKULAM REVENUE
DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM 2025-2026
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN - 682030
2 THE CONVENOR, PROGRAMME COMMITTEE,
ERNAKULAM REVENUE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM 2025-2026
ST ALBERTS HIGHER SECONDERY SCHOOL,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
3 THE CONVENOR, PROGRAMME COMMITTEE,
64TH KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2026
PROGRAMME OFFICE, GOVERNMENT MODEL THRISSUR,
WP(C) NO. 1035 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:1743
PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680020
SMT. AMMINIKUTTY K., SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
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. 1035 OF 2026
3
2026:KER:1743
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS,J
------------------------------------
WP(C) No.1035 of 2026
------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner's team was a participant in the event 'Kolkali' in the
Ernakulam District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. They secured 4th position
and 'A' grade in the event. Aggrieved by the evaluation conducted, he
preferred an appeal. By Ext. P4 order dated 06.12.2025, 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
his team's performance on the day of the event was par excellence and
his team ought to have been awarded first place with 'A' grade. Petitioner
contended that the Judges erroneously placed his team in a wrong
position due to a faulty evaluation, which is required to be set aside and
he be placed in the first place.
4. The Appellate Authority considered his contentions and
rejected the challenge. The appellate authority came to such a conclusion
after verifying the score sheets, Stage Manager's report, videograph and
WP(C) NO. 1035 OF 2026
2026:KER:1743
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 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
WP(C) NO. 1035 OF 2026
2026:KER:1743
conclusion different from that arrived at by the expert bodies.
7. Though the learned Counsel pointed out that the petitioner had
not actually fell unconscious, but had fallen down due to a defect in the
stage arrangements, I am of the view that the Appellate Authority has
specifically considered the said contention and came to the conclusion
after watching the video, that petitioner had fallen down after becoming
unconscious and could not complete the event. Though the grievance
raised in the appeal was confined only to the fact that the petitioner's
team had been winning prizes for the last 12 years and had even
represented the Ernakulam District due to which they ought to be allowed
to participate in the State Youth Festival, during the course of hearing,
the learned counsel pointed out, relying upon Ext.P1 that there was a
defect in the stage. The contention now raised in this writ petition
regarding the defect in the stage arrangement applies to all participants
alike and it is not peculiar to the petitioner alone. Hence, the said
grievance raised in this writ petition has no merit at all.
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
WP(C) NO. 1035 OF 2026
2026:KER:1743
(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
pm
WP(C) NO. 1035 OF 2026
2026:KER:1743
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 1035 OF 2026
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE FLOOR AREA OF
THE STAGE DATED NILL
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS OF THE
KOLKALI COMPETITION- HSS GENERAL OF
ERNAKULAM -DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM 2025-26
DATED 27.11.2025
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FORM PREFERRED
BY THE PETITIONER'S TEAM BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT AND ITS RECEIPT DATED
27.11.2025
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 06/12/2025
