[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ajvad K K vs Director Of General Education on 13 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2026:KER:2249
WP(C) NO. 891 OF 2026 1
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. 891 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
AJVAD K K
AGED 18 YEARS
S/O SHOUKATHALI KANJIRAKKATTIL HOUSE,
THAMARASSERY, MANJERY, PAYYANAD, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676122.
BY ADVS.
SMT.K.VINAYA
SMT.M.M.BABY
RESPONDENTS:
1 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THYCAUD P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695014.
2 CHAIRMAN, HIGHER APPEAL COMMITTEE (DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF EDUCATION)
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THYCAUD P O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014.
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
KOTTAPPADY, DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676519.
4 CO ORDINATOR
REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM, VANDOOR,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679328.
2026:KER:2249
WP(C) NO. 891 OF 2026 2
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. AMMINIKUTTY K., SR. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:2249
WP(C) NO. 891 OF 2026 1
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO.891 OF 2026
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the event 'Gazal Alapanam'
in the Malappuram District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. He
secured 'A' Grade. Aggrieved by the evaluation conducted, he
preferred an appeal. By Ext.P2 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 is that petitioner's
performance on the day of the event was par excellence and he
ought to have been awarded first place with A grade. Petitioner
contended that the Judges erroneously placed him in a wrong
position due to a faulty evaluation, which is required to be set
aside and he be placed in the first place. The learned counsel for
the petitioner pointed out that there was no proper subject expert
amongst the judges, which has affected the evaluation.
2026:KER:2249
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 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. In the appellate stage, the petitioner had raised the
contention regarding a technical objection, while before this Court,
the only contention raised was that there was no subject expert
amongst the judges. Considering the fact that the impugned
2026:KER:2249
order is dated 06.12.2025 and the petitioner has filed this writ
petition only on the eve of the State School Kalolsavam, which is
stated to be commencing from tomorrow i.e. 14.01.2026, I am of
the view that the contention regarding the absence of the subject
expert cannot be considered in this writ petition, especially since
such a contention was not raised before the Appellate Committee.
7. This Court cannot go into the disputed facts under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 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
2026:KER:2249
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/13.01.2026
2026:KER:2249
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 891 OF 2026
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET AWARDED
TO THE PARTICIPANTS FOR GAZAL URDU
ALAPANAM BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTED THE
APPEAL DATED 06.12.2025
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
THE KALOLSAVAM MANUAL.
