[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Muhammed Adil P S vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2026:KER:2514
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. 1394 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
MUHAMMED ADIL P S
AGED 19 YEARS
PUTHENPURAYIL, KOOVALLOOR, KOOVALLOOR, VTC:
POTHANIKKAD, PO: KOOVALLOOR, SUB DISTRICT:
KOTHAMANGALAM, DISTRICT: ERNAKULAM, STATE: KERALA,
PIN - 686671
BY ADV SHRI.ANANDAKRISHNAN K.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,THE DIRECTORATE
OF GENERAL EDUCATION
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 THE APPEAL COMMITTEE, REVENUE DISTRICT KERALA
SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL
EDUCATION, IDUKKI
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION,IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
4 PROGRAMME COMMITTEE, GENERAL CONVENER, REVENUE
DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL
EDUCATION
GENERAL CONVENER, REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL
KALOLSAVAM, IDUKK, PIN - 685595
SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP
2026:KER:2514
2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:2514
3
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
W.P.(C) No. 1394 of 2026
...................................................
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the event 'Arabanamuttu
(Boys)' in the HSS General District School Kalolsavam 2025-26.
He was placed in the second place with 'A' Grade. Aggrieved
by the evaluation conducted, he preferred an appeal. By
Ext.P3 order dated 16.12.2025, 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 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 him in the second position which is required
to be set aside and he be placed in the first place.
4. The Appellate Authority had considered her
contentions and rejected the same after verifying the score
2026:KER:2514
sheets, Stage Manager's report, videograph and also the
evaluation sheet.
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
2026:KER:2514
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. The objection raised by the petitioner
does not relate to any defect of the organizers but is solely
confined to a flaw on the part of the participant. Therefore, the
petitioner cannot be granted permission on that ground to
participate in the next stage of the competition.
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 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.
2026:KER:2514
8. Since I have already concluded that 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
SJ
2026:KER:2514
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 1394 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
MALAYATTIL KESAVAN NAIR MEMORIAL HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUMARAMANGALAM,
STATING THAT THE TEAM OF PARTICIPANTS
WHO WON SECOND RANK IN ARABAANAMUTTU
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL APPLICATION DATED 23
DECEMBER 2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER OF
APPEAL DATED 16/12/2025 ISSUED BY THE
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATIONTRUE
COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER OF APPEAL
DATED 16/12/2025 ISSUED BY THE
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF MANUAL ISSUED BY THE KERALA
GOVERNMENT FOR KALOLSAVAM UNDATED
Exhibit P5 SCREENSHOT OF THE COMPLAINT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUEDBY CMO DATED
07/01/2026
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF REPLY FROM THE CMO DATED
03/01/2026 ISSUED BY DIRECTORATE OF
GENERAL EDUCATION
