[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Vygha Jovience vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
WP(C) No.1523 of 2026 1
2026:KER:3383
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. 1523 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
VYGHA JOVIENCE
AGED 17 YEARS
D/O JINISHA P, KOLADITHAZHAM, ELATHUR, PO,
ERANHIKKAL, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY HER
GUARDIAN JINISHA.P, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O
DEVADASAN, KELODY THAZHAM, ERANHIKKAL, ELATHUR,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673303
BY ADVS.
SHRI.LATHEEF P.K.
SHRI.ALBIN T.O.
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, PIN - 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
ROOM NO. 206, SECOND FLOOR, SOUTH SANDWICH
BLOCK, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GENERAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
3 THE CHAIRMAN
APPEAL COMMITTEE OF THE DISTRICT SCHOOL
KALOLSAVAM DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673001
WP(C) No.1523 of 2026 2
2026:KER:3383
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. AMMINIKUTTY K., SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.1523 of 2026 1
2026:KER:3383
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS,J
------------------------------------
WP(C) No.1523 of 2026
------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the event
'Bharathanatyam' in the Kozhikode District School Kalolsavam
2025-26 in HSS General. He/She secured second place with
"A' Grade. Aggrieved by the evaluation conducted, he/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 learned counsel pointed out that there was a
nail on the stage which affected her performance, apart from
the restricted area on the stage.
4. The Appellate Authority considered his/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
2026:KER:3383
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. The contention regarding nails on the stage is a
matter of factual dispute, which cannot be considered by this
Court in this writ petition. Further, the petitioner did not raise
the restricted area of the stage at the time of filing the appeal;
hence, this new contention cannot be considered by this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the
writ petition has been brought up for consideration only today,
while the State Kalolsavam commenced yesterday.
2026:KER:3383
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 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
pm
2026:KER:3383
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 1523 OF 2026
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEETS OF
BHARATHANATYAM (GIRLS), HSS GENERAL, IN
THE KOZHIKODE REVENUE DISTRICT LEVEL
KALOLSAVAM, ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DATED 25-11-2025
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C2/ 5390/
2025/ DDEKKD DATED 04.12.2025 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DIARY OF THE STAGE
MANAGER DATED 25.11.2025
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA SCHOOL
KALOLSAVAM MANUAL 2025
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROGRAM SCHEDULE OF
THE STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM GOING TO BE
HELD FROM 14-01-2026 TO 18-01-2026
