[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Krishnapriya S vs Director Of General Education on 13 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
WP(C) NO. 1165 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:2319
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. 1165 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
KRISHNAPRIYA S., AGED 15 YEARS,
D/O. SAJU, AYYEDATH HOUSE, MANJIKKAD, MOOKKANOOR P.O,
ERNAKULAM- 683 577, REP. BY HER MOTHER & LAWFUL
GUARDIAN, DHANYA SAJU, AGED 41, W/O. SAJU, AYYEDATH
HOUSE, MANJIKKAD, MOOKKANOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM
BY ADV SRI.MANU ROY
RESPONDENTS:
1 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
DDE OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682030
3 THE CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE, ERNAKULAM REVENUE
DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM, DDE OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD, PIN - 682030
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. 1165 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:2319
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
W.P.(C) No.1165 of 2026
...................................................
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner's team participated in the event 'drama' in the High School
level in the Ernakulam District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. Her team
was placed in the fourth position with 'A' Grade. Aggrieved by the
evaluation conducted, she preferred an appeal. By Ext.P5 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 the
performance of the petitioner's team on the day of the event was par
excellence and they ought to have been awarded the first place with A
grade. Petitioner contended that the Judges erroneously placed their
team in the fourth position which is required to be set aside and their
team be placed in the first place. The learned counsel further pointed
out that the team was not given sufficient time to change their dress and
they had to participate in the 'drama' event wearing the same dress as
that for the 'skit' event, which affected their performance.
4. The Appellate Authority had considered her contentions and rejected the
same after verifying the score sheets, Stage Manager's report,
WP(C) NO. 1165 OF 2026
2026:KER:2319
videograph and also the evaluation sheet. The Appellate Authority also
noted that there was a difference of '12' marks between the first place
holder and the petitioner and that the performance on the day of the
event was not up to the mark as claimed by the petitioner.
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 contention regarding the lack of time available for changing the
dress from the 'skit' to the dress for drama was found to be not
meritorious by the appellate committee. Since the issue now raised by
the learned counsel are matters of factual disputes, this Court, exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot enter a
finding on those disputed facts, and hence, there is no merit in the
contentions raised.
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
WP(C) NO. 1165 OF 2026
2026:KER:2319
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.
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. 1165 OF 2026
2026:KER:2319
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 1165 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF MERIT OF SACRED
HEART ORPHANAGE HS, MOOKKANNOOR DATED
08-01-2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE PARTICIPANT CARD OF THE
PETITIONER IN NADAKAM AND SKIT.
EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE APPEAL FEE RECEIPT DATED
26-11-2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF THE PHOTO TAKEN IN THE MOBILE PHONE
OF THE ANNEXURE TO THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM
NARRATING THE ENTIRE FACTS
EXHIBIT P5 A COPY OF ORDER DATED 06-12-2025 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
