[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Unnimaya Pm Represented By His Guardian vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2026:KER:2639
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. 1364 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
UNNIMAYA PM REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN
AGED 15 YEARS
D/O SANTHOSH PM, PUZHANGOTT MEETHAL, PULLOORKKARA,
CHOKLI, KANNUR REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER SANTHOSH
PM, AGED 48 YEARS, PUZHANGOTT MEETHAL,
PULLOORKKARA, CHOKLI, KANNUR, PIN - 670672
BY ADV SMT. T.H.RAIHANATH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695024
2 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
PADMAVILASOM ROAD, FORT P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695023
3 APPEAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
KANNUR REVENUE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM 2025-2026,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670002
4 THE CONVENOR
PROGRAMME COMMITTEE, KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM
2026, THEKKINKADU MAIDAN, SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680306
SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, 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:2639
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
W.P.(C) No.1364 of 2026
...................................................
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the event ' Oppana (Girls)' in
the HS General District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. She was
placed in the third place with 'A' Grade. Aggrieved by the
evaluation conducted, she preferred an appeal. By Ext. P3 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 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
third position which is required to be set aside and she be placed in
the first place. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out
that petitioner had raised objections when there was a serious
blockage in the mike arranged at the venue and that the students
who sang the chorus were also affected due to defects in the sound
2026:KER:2639
system.
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. The
Appellate Authority also noted that there was a difference of 5
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 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
2026:KER:2639
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 appellate
authority considered the contentions and, after verifying the stage
Manager's report, came to the conclusion that there was no defect in
the arrangements on the stage. It was further observed that the
petitioner had secured only the third prize, with a difference of five
marks. Though it was pointed out that the second prize winner was
permitted to participate in the next stage pursuant to an appeal
filed by them, the same cannot be a ground to grant similar
permission to the petitioner.
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 (5) KHC
479] and Additional Director of Public Instructions and
2026:KER:2639
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
SJ
2026:KER:2639
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 1364 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTICIPANT CARD DATED
19.11.2025 IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER FOR
KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2025-2026
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FEE RECEIPT DATED
19.11.2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
DDEKNR/7143/2025-E3(43) DATED 04.12.2025
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF DETAILS OF APPEAL LIST
ISSUED DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
KOLLAM
