[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Fidha Afrin K A vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
W.P.(C). No.936 OF 2026
2026:KER:3066
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 25TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 936 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
FIDHA AFRIN K A
AGED 15 YEARS
D/O. ASIFA P S RESIDING AT KOCHIPARAMBIL(H) MATHILAKAM P
O, THRISSUR 680 685 , REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND
GUARDIAN ASIFA P S, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O SHARAFUDHEEN,
RESIDING AT KOCHIPARAMBIL (H), MATHILAKAM P O, THRISSUR
DISTRICT,
BY ADVS.
SHRI.AHAMMAD SACHIN K.
SHRI.MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.
SMT.NAYANA VARGHESE
SMT.RIA VARGHESE
SHRI.JERRY PETER
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO. 206, SECOND FLOOR, SOUTH SANDWICH
BLOCK, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
GENERAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION/GENERAL
CONVENER
KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2025-2026, ROOM NO. 206,
SECOND FLOOR, SOUTH SANDWICH BLOCK, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GENERAL.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION/THE JOINT GENERAL
CONVENER
KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2025-2026, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR REVENUE DISTRICT
KALOLSAVAM, CIVIL STATION, AYANTHOL, THRISSUR, PIN -
680003
W.P.(C). No.936 OF 2026
2026:KER:3066
2
4 THE CHAIRMAN
APPEAL COMMITTEE OF THRISSUR REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL
KALOLSAVAM, CIVIL STATION, AYANTHOL, THRISSUR, PIN -
680003
SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). No.936 OF 2026
2026:KER:3066
3
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.936 of 2026
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner's team a participated in the event 'Bandmelam
HS General' in the Thrissur District School Kalolsavam 2025-26.
They secured second place. Aggrieved by the evaluation
conducted, she 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 her team's 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 her team in a wrong position due to a faulty evaluation,
which is required to be set aside and she be placed in the first
place. The learned counsel also submitted that the criteria
W.P.(C). No.936 OF 2026
2026:KER:3066
mentioned in the score sheet were not those specified for
Bandmelam, and therefore, evaluation itself was perverse.
4. The Appellate Authority considered her 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 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
objection raised by the petitioner in appeal was against the bad
W.P.(C). No.936 OF 2026
2026:KER:3066
behaviour of the judges which was found to be false. Though it
is alleged that the score sheet contained different parameters,
the same applied equally to all the participants, and therefore,
the said error cannot be peculiar to the petitioner. Moreover
there was a difference of 14 marks between the petitioner and
the 1st prize winner. Apart from the above, the event is
scheduled to be held today in the State Kalolsavam which also
defeats the claim of 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 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
W.P.(C). No.936 OF 2026
2026:KER:3066
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
SMF
W.P.(C). No.936 OF 2026
2026:KER:3066
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 936 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET DATED 19.11.2025
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NUMBERED
DDETSR/6396/2025/J6 DATED 04.12.2025 ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE KERALA
KALOLSAVAM MANUAL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
