[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Adrima P V vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2026:KER:2497
WP(C) NO. 1093 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. 1093 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
ADRIMA P V
AGED 14 YEARS
D/O LATE MANIKANDADAS CHERUVILA, VELICHAMTHODE,
PO ARAVANCHAL, KANNUR DISTRICT- REPRESENTED BY
GRANDMOTHER, RADHAMANI PV, AGED 70 YEARS, D/O
LATE M RAMAN, VELICHAMTHODE, PO ARAVANCHAL,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670353.
BY ADV SHRI.ADARSH K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
2 THE GENERAL CONVENOR
KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2025-26, THRISSUR,
KERALA, PIN - 680001.
3 THE CONVENOR
KASARAGOD DISTRICT KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2025-
26, MOGRAL, KASARAGOD-, PIN - 671321.
4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671123.
2026:KER:2497
WP(C) NO. 1093 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:2497
WP(C) NO. 1093 OF 2026 1
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 1093 OF 2026
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the event 'Mohiniyattam'
in the Kasaragod District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. She
secured third place with 'A' Grade. Aggrieved by the evaluation
conducted, she preferred an appeal. By Ext.P5 order dated
01.01.2026, 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 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.
The learned counsel for the petitioner raised an objection that
the safety pin lying on the stage had pierced her foot during her
2026:KER:2497
performance and the lighting arrangements were poor.
4. The appellate authority considered her 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. Though the petitioner raised an objection that the
safety pin had pierced during her performance, the appeal
committee had, after verifying the videography, came to the
2026:KER:2497
conclusion that the objection raised has no validity. In this
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this
Court cannot go into the disputed facts to arrive at a conclusion
or to ascertain the factual situation. I do not find any merit in
this writ petition. 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.
7. 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
2026:KER:2497
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.
8. 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:2497
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 1093 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE
ITEM : 631 - BHARATHANATYAM (GIRLS) FOR
HS GENERAL CATEGORY PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE DISTRICT
KALOLSAVAM 2025-26 BY GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA DATED NIL
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE
ITEM : 633 - KUCHUPPUDI (GIRLS) FOR HS
GENERAL CATEGORY PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE DISTRICT
KALOLSAVAM 2025-26 BY GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA DATED NIL
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE ITEMS
FOR HS GENERAL CATEGORY PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE DISTRICT
KALOLSAVAM 2025-26 BY GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA DATED NIL
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF APPEAL
ISSUED THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER DATED 30.12.2025
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
KASARAGOD DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM
APPEAL COMMITTEE DATED 01.01.2026
