[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sara Elizabeth vs Director Of General Education on 13 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
1
WP(C) No.1241/2026
2026:KER:2434
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. 1241 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
SARA ELIZABETH
AGED 16 YEARS
D/O. JOBY JOSEPH,
NEENDUTHALAKKAL HOUSE,THALAKKANI,
KOTTIYOOR P.O, KANNUR, KERALA
REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER,
JOBY JOSEPH, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O N.T JOSEPH,
NEENDUTHALAKKAL HOUSE,
THALAKKANI, KOTTIYOOR P.O,
KANNUR, KERALA,
PIN - 670651
BY ADV SMT.B.ANUSREE
RESPONDENTS:
1 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
O/O THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
2 KALOLSAVAM COMMITTEE CONVENER
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
O/O THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL
EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695014
3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
O/O THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
GOVT TTI FOR MEN COMPOUND, KANNUR,
2
WP(C) No.1241/2026
2026:KER:2434
KERALA, PIN - 670002
4 CHAIRMAN APPEAL COMMITTEE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
O/O DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PAYYAMBALAM,
KANNUR, KERALA, PIN - 670003
SMT. AMMINIKUTTY K., SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
WP(C) No.1241/2026
2026:KER:2434
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
...........................................................
W.P.(C) No. 1241 of 2026
............................................................
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner's team was a participant in the event 'Margamkali' in the
Kannur District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. They secured 2nd place with 'A'
Grade. Aggrieved by the evaluation conducted, they preferred an appeal. By
Ext. P2 order dated 04.12.2025, 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 they ought to have
been awarded first place with A grade. Petitioner contended that the Judges
erroneously placed them in a wrong position due to a faulty evaluation, which is
required to be set aside and they be placed in the first place.
4. The Appellate Authority considered their 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's team was not up to the mark as that of the first
place holder.
2026:KER:2434
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's team 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 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
contention raised by the petitioner regarding the loose carpet laid on the stage,
even if assumed to be correct, still it was a matter common to all the
participants and the same could not have been peculiar to the petitioner alone.
7. In the decisions in Sweety v. State of Kerala [1994 KHC 216] and
2026:KER:2434
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 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
sos/13.01.2026
2026:KER:2434
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 1241 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OBTAINED BY
THE PETITIONER ON FILING THE APPEAL
DATED 20.11.2025
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT DATED 04.12.2025
