[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Anjana Kr vs The Principal on 13 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
WP(C) NO. 285 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:2289
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 23RD POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 285 OF 2026
PETITIONERS:
1 ANJANA K R,
AGED 17 YEARS
D/O RAJESHKUMAR K M, KRISHNA VIHAR, MANKUZHI LANE,
POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER
MOTHER BHAGYA SANTHA, W/O RAJESHKUMAR K M, AGED 44
YEARS, KRISHNA VIHAR, MANKUZHI LANE, POONKUNNAM,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680002
2 SIYA TS
AGED 17 YEARS
D/O SMILJA P J, RESIDING AT THEKKEMADAM HOUSE,
P.O URAKAM, THRISSUR-REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER,
SMILJA P J, D/O JANARDHANAN, AGED 42 YEARS,
THEKKEMADAM HOUSE, P.O URAKAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680562
BY ADVS. SHRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR
SMT.K.L.SREEKALA
SHRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR
SRI.M.A.VINOD
SRI.K.G.MANOJ KUMAR
SRI.M.RAJESH KUMAR
SHRI.PRASOON.K.P
SMT.ANU PRABHAKAR
SMT.SWATHYKRISHNA K.
SMT.ABHIRAMI P.S.
SHRI.VISHNU PRASAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE PRINCIPAL,
VIVEKODAYAM BOYS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
WP(C) NO. 285 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:2289
2 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER
THRISSUR SUB DISTRICT, OLARI BRC, PUTHURKARA,
AYYANTHOLE P O, PIN - 680003
3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER
DEO OFFICE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
DD OFFICE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
5 THE GENERAL CONVENOR
THRISSUR DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLTSAVAOM, OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DD OFFICE, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
6 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
7 THE GENERAL CONVENOR
STATE SCHOOL KALOLTSAVAOM, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DD OFFICE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680003
BY ADV.AMMINIKUTTY K., SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 285 OF 2026
3
2026:KER:2289
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
W.P.(C) No. 285 of 2026
...................................................
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioners' team participated in the event 'Group Dance (HS Section)
Girls' in the Thrissur Revenue District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. Their
team was placed in the fourth place with 'A' Grade. Aggrieved by the
evaluation conducted, they preferred an appeal. By Ext.P7 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 petitioners is that their
performance on the day of the event was par excellence and they ought
to have been awarded the first place with A grade. Petitioners contended
that the Judges erroneously placed them in the fourth position which is
required to be set aside and they be placed in the first place. The
learned counsel further submitted that the area of the stage was not
sufficient enough for the event 'group dance' and that had affected their
performance.
4. The Appellate Authority had considered their contentions and rejected
WP(C) NO. 285 OF 2026
2026:KER:2289
the same after verifying the score sheets, Stage Manager's report,
videograph and also the evaluation sheet. The Appellate Authority also
noted that there was a difference of '7' marks between the first place
holder and the petitioners and that the performance on the day of the
event was not up to the mark as claimed by them.
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 petitioners 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 contentions raised regarding the small area of the stage, even if it is
assumed to be correct, still, it is applicable equally to all the participants
of the event and is not peculiar to the petitioners. Therefore, there
cannot be any error in evaluation based on the small size of the stage
that was allegedly provided.
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
WP(C) NO. 285 OF 2026
2026:KER:2289
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 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 no exceptional reasons are 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. 285 OF 2026
2026:KER:2289
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 285 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
06.11.2025 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE CARD OF THE
DISTRICT LEVEL KALOLSAVAM.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGES FEEDBACK FORM
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
KALOLSAVAM MANUAL.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN FROM
THE COURSE OF THE PERFORMANCE SHOWING THE
CARPET MALFUNCTION.
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FORM SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONERS ON BEHALF OF THE TEAM DATED
21.11.2025.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER OF THE
APPEAL BY THE APPEAL COMMITTEE DATED
04.12.2025.
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE KALOLSAVAM PAMPHLET
