[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Mohammed Aban.M vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
WP(C) NO. 1181 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:2327
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. 1181 OF 2026
PETITIONERS:
MOHAMMED ABAN M., AGED 18 YEARS,
STANDARD XII, IDEAL E.H.S.S, KADAKASSERY, S/O ASHARAF
RESIDING AT MACHINGAL HOUSE PALLAPRAM, PONNANI P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679577
BY ADV SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER SECONDARY
EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 THE GENERAL CONVENER
(DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION), MALAPPURAM REVENUE
DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM PROGAMME COMMITTEE OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE CHAIRMAN
(THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION), HIGHER APPEAL
COMMITTEE, MALAPPURAM REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM,
O/O DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN
- 695001
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. 1181 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:2327
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
W.P.(C) No.1181 of 2026
...................................................
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the event 'Mimicry (Boys)' in the Malappuram
Revenue 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.P2 order dated 06.12.2025, 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 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. The learned counsel further pointed
out that the judges for the event had no qualifications, and the same has
affected the adjudication.
4. The Appellate Authority had considered his contentions and rejected the same
after verifying the score sheets, Stage Manager's report, videograph and also
the evaluation sheet. The Appellate Authority also noted that the
WP(C) NO. 1181 OF 2026
2026:KER:2327
performance of the petitioner on the day of the event 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. On a perusal of Ext.P2 order, it is noticed that, the petitioner had not raised
any contention regarding the lack of qualification of the judges. Therefore,
the said question cannot be raised afresh in this writ petition. Hence, I find no
merit in the said contention. 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
WP(C) NO. 1181 OF 2026
2026:KER:2327
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.
8. Since no exceptional reasons are 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/14/01/2026
WP(C) NO. 1181 OF 2026
2026:KER:2327
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 1181 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE TABLE ALONG WITH
TABULATION SHEET OF MIMICRY(BOYS) HSS GENERAL
OF MALAPPURAM DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM 2025-202
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2025 OF
3RD RESPONDENT
