[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sreevidya P Nair, Aged 15Years ... vs The Director Of General Education on 13 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2026:KER:2264
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. 1269 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
SREEVIDYA P NAIR, AGED 15YEARS REPRESENTED BY HER
MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN- REMYA S.
AGED 40 YEARS
D/O K R MURALI, MAHESH BHAVAN, POTHAPPALLY,
KUMARAPURAM P.O., KUMARAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 690548
BY ADVS.
SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN
SMT.AMRITA ARUN
SMT.AARABHI GOPAN
SHRI.HARIMOHAN
SMT.HANA KARNOLIA MADONA CYRIL
SHRI.JYOTHIKUMAR R.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 690514
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, NEAR
CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT, PIN - 688001
3 THE APPELLATE COMMITTEE [CONSTITUTED UNDER THE
KERALA SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL MANUAL,],
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
2026:KER:2264
2
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA COLLECTORATE,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688001
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:2264
3
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
W.P.(C) No. 1269 of 2026
...................................................
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the event 'Sasthreeya
Sangeetham' in the HS General at the Alappuzha District School
Kalolsavam 2025-26. She was placed in the 2 nd place with 'A'
Grade. Aggrieved by the evaluation conducted, she preferred an
appeal. By Ext. P1 order dated 30.12.2025 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 2nd position which is required to be set aside and
she be placed in the first place. The learned counsel for the
2026:KER:2264
petitioner also pointed out that despite specific objections
regarding defect in the mike having been raised, the appeal
committee failed to even consider the contention and issued
Ext.P1 order without any application of mind. Reference was
made to Ext.P2 order in another appeal filed by the petitioner in
connection with another event.
4. The Appellate Authority had considered her
contentions and rejected the same after verifying the score
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
2026:KER:2264
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. Though, the contention that the
appellate committee had not applied his mind while dismissing
the appeal has some merit, still, considering the nature of
objection raised in the appeal resulting in Ext.P1 order, I am of
the view that interference by this court is not warranted.
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
2026:KER:2264
(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 there are no exceptional reasons 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:2264
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 1269 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPEAL BEARING
NUMBER DDELP/C1/4090/2025(19), ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30.12.2025
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPEAL BEARING
NUMBER DDELP/C1/4090/2025(72), ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30.12.2025, FOR
FLUTE COMPETITION
