[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Aaga Sanal A (Minor) vs Director Of General Education on 13 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2026:KER:2515
WP(C) NO. 991 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. 991 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
AAGA SANAL A (MINOR)
AGED 17 YEARS
D/O ANJU KIRAN P S, AMARAVILA VEEDU, SISILIPURAM
VENGANOOR P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY
HER MOTHER ANJU KIRAN P S, AGED 46. W/O SANAL.R.V.
AMARAVILA VEEDU, SISILIPURAM VENGANOOR P O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695523.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.RAJESH KANNAN
SHRI.PRAVEEN N. PILLAI
RESPONDENTS:
1 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014.
2 KALOLSAVAM COMMITTEE CONVENOR/ ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
OF GENERAL EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL
EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695014.
3 DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, STATUE,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
4 CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE/ DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2026:KER:2515
WP(C) NO. 991 OF 2026 2
O/O THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PADMAVILASOM ROAD, FORT
(P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695029.
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:2515
WP(C) NO. 991 OF 2026 1
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 991 OF 2026
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the event 'Kuchuppudi' in
the Thiruvananthapuram Revenue District School Kalolsavam
2025-26. She secured sixth position. Aggrieved by the evaluation
conducted, she 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 their 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.
4. The appellate authority considered her contentions
and rejected the challenge. The appellate authority came to such
2026:KER:2515
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 difference of marks between the petitioner and
the first prize winner is 9 marks. Even though I have already
allowed the application filed by the fifth place holder, the reason
for granting such a permission is different from that raised by the
petitioner. Hence there is no merit in this writ petition. The
evaluation of marks in an event, especially that relating to
2026:KER:2515
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 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
2026:KER:2515
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:2515
WP(C) NO. 991 OF 2026 5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 991 OF 2026
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C(4)/5045/2025
DATED 12.12.2025 ISSUED BY DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (QIP)
Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER
NO.C(4)/5045/2025 DATED 12.12.2025 ISSUED
BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (QIP)
Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C (4)/5045/2025
DATED 12.12.2025 ISSUED BY DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (QIP)
Exhibit P4 A COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C (4)/5045/2025
DATED 12.12.2025 ISSUED BY DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (QIP)
Exhibit P5 A COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C(4)/5045/2025
DATED 12.12.2025 ISSUED BY DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (QIP)
