[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ameya Mohan vs The Director Of General Education on 13 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
WP(C) NO. 77 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:2309
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. 77 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
AMEYA MOHAN, AGED 15 YEARS, MINOR, D/O MOHANKUMAR P.K.,
STUDENT 10TH STANDARD, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL, THALAPPUZHA,MANANTHAVADY, REPRESENTED BY HER
FATHER MOHANKUMAR .P.K, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O
KRISHNANKUTTY, RESIDING AT PUTHENVEETIL (H), IDIKKARA,
THALAPPUZHA (PO), WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 672644
BY ADVS.
SRI.JACOB CHACKO
SHRI.B.V.JOY SANKAR
SHRI.P.SUJITH KUMAR
SRI.R.RAJA RAJA VARMA
SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH
SHRI.N.KRISHNA MOORTHY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
DPI JN. JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
2 THE APPEAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN/ DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION,
KANNUR, PIN - 670002
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION,
WAYANAD, PIN - 673122
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
THE OFFICE OF DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN - 673121
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:
WP(C) NO. 77 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:2309
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
W.P.(C) No.77 of 2026
...................................................
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the event 'Ottamthullal (Girls)' in the
Wayanad Revenue District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. She was placed
in the second place with 'A' Grade. Aggrieved by the evaluation
conducted, she preferred an appeal. By Ext.P2 order dated 03.12.2025
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
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. The learned
counsel further pointed out that except for publishing the list as Ext.P2,
no separate orders were passed on the appeals filed by the petitioner.
4. The Appellate Authority had considered her contentions and rejected the
same after verifying the score sheets, Stage Manager's report,
WP(C) NO. 77 OF 2026
2026:KER:2309
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 learned Government Pleader handed over a copy of the separate
order passed in the appeal filed by the petitioner. On a perusal of the
said order, it is noticed that, the appeal was dismissed on 02.12.2025, a
copy of which has not been produced by the petitioner in this writ
petition. The order of the appellate committee also indicates that the
contention raised by the petitioner regarding the technical defect has
been considered and it was found to be without any merit. Taking note
of the nature of objections, this Court finds no reason to interfere with
the adjudication.
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. 77 OF 2026
2026:KER:2309
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 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
AMV/13/01/2026
WP(C) NO. 77 OF 2026
2026:KER:2309
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 77 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT.P-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 22.11.2025
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MAINTAINED
WITH 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT.P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF APPEALS
DATED 03.12.2025 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
REJECTING THE APPEALS INCLUDING THE APPEAL OF
THE PETITIONER( SL NO.32).
