[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Karthikeyan S J vs The Director Of General Education on 13 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
W.P.(C). No.128 OF 2026
2026:KER:2544
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. 128 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
KARTHIKEYAN S J
AGED 14 YEARS
S/O JAYALAKSHMI ,KARIKKAKATHIL VEEDU VELLALLORE P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN
JAYALAKSHMI ,W/O SHIBU AGED 43 YEARS KARIKKAKATHIL VEEDU
VELLALLORE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695601
BY ADVS.
SRI.CHRISTINE MATHEW
SHRI.RAPHAEL THEKKAN
SRI.ABEL ANTONY
SHRI.ABIN VARKEY KODIYATTU
SHRI.AJAY JUEL KURIAKOSE
SHRI.NIHAL MOHAMMED S.
SHRI.ABESH ALOSIOUS
SHRI.GLADWIN K.A.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
JAGATHY, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KOCHAR RD, PAZHAYASALAI, VALIYASALAI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695036
3 THE CHAIRMAN
PROGRAMME COMMITTEE,THE STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM
THRISSUR ,THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM STATUE, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
5 THE CHAIRMAN
APPEAL COMMITTEE, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KOCHAR RD, PAZHAYASALAI, VALIYASALAI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695036
SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). No.128 OF 2026
2026:KER:2544
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.128 of 2026
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the event 'Chendamelam' in the
Thiruvananthapuram District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. He
secured second place with 'A' Grade. Aggrieved by the
evaluation conducted, he preferred an appeal. By Ext. P1 order
dated 12.12.2025, 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 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 objection raised by the petitioner is that there was a defect
W.P.(C). No.128 OF 2026
2026:KER:2544
in the mike system that was arranged.
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. 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
W.P.(C). No.128 OF 2026
2026:KER:2544
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. The appellate authority specifically
considered the objection raised and found, after perusing the
video, that there was no defect in the sound system that was
arranged at the stage. In a writ petition field under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot go into the
disputed facts. Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition.
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 Manas
Manohar v. Registrar, Kerala Lok Ayuktha and Others
[2022 (5) KHC 479] and Additional Director of Public
W.P.(C). No.128 OF 2026
2026:KER:2544
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
SMF
W.P.(C). No.128 OF 2026
2026:KER:2544
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 128 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY ORDER OF BEARING NO. C4/5045/2025
DATED 12.12.2025 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
