[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Fathima Farooq .A vs The Deputy Director Of Education on 12 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
WP(C) NO. 879 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:1858
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. 879 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
FATHIMA FAROOQ A.
AGED 17 YEARS
D/O MUHAMMED FAROOQ.T.A, RESIDING AT ADAM QUARTERS,
ELAYAVOOR, VARAM.P.O., KANNUR,REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
FEBINA M P, W/O MUHAMMED FAROOQ.T.A, RESIDING AT ADAM
QUARTERS, ELAYAVOOR,VARAM.P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670594
BY ADVS. SHRI.M.BAIJU NOEL
SMT.T.S.LIKHITHA
SMT.NEHA MARIA
SMT.GRACE MARIYA GEOGY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
REPRESENTED BY JURY CHAIRMAN APPEAL COMMITTEE, REVENUE
DISTRICT YOUTH FESTIVAL, KANNUR, PIN - 670003
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
SMT. AMMINIKUTTY K., SR. 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. 879 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:1858
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
W.P.(C) No.879 of 2026
...................................................
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the event 'Oppana' in the Kannur Revenue
District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. Her team was placed in the second
place with 'A' Grade. Aggrieved by the evaluation conducted, she
preferred an appeal. By Ext.P1 order dated 04.12.2025 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 team's
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 second position which is
required to be set aside and she be placed in the first place. According
to the petitioner, the difference in marks between the petitioner and the
first prize holder was only one mark, and that the stage was not
conducive for performing the event.
4. The Appellate Authority had considered her contentions and rejected the
same after verifying the score sheets, Stage Manager's report,
WP(C) NO. 879 OF 2026
2026:KER:1858
videograph and also the evaluation sheet. The Appellate Authority also
noted that there was a difference of one mark 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 the petitioner.
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. Merely because there is only a one mark difference between the
petitioner and the first prize winner, the same is not a sufficient reason to
permit the petitioner to participate in the forthcoming State School Youth
Festival. Further, the contention that the stage was not appropriate for
performing 'Oppana' is applicable equally to all performers and no
material as such is available to even substantiate the said claim.
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
WP(C) NO. 879 OF 2026
2026:KER:1858
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 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.
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
AMV/13/01/2026
WP(C) NO. 879 OF 2026
2026:KER:1858
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 879 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF REJECTION IN APPEAL
PREFERRED IN OPPANA ORDER NO.
DDEKNR/7143/2025-E3(58) DATED 04.12.2025
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
