[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Varun Denny Antony vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
W.P.(C). No.1345 OF 2026
2026:KER:3169
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. 1345 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
VARUN DENNY ANTONY
AGED 18 YEARS
S/O DENNY ANTONY, STUDENT, PLUS TWO, LEO XIII HSS,
ALAPPUZHA , RESIDING AT VATTATHIL HOUSE,
KUTHIRAPPANTHY, THIRUVAMPADY JN. P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688002
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.PRADEEP KUMAR
SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
SMT.NAMITHA GEORGE
SMT.STENEY K.A.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
GENERAL CONVENER, KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2025-26,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 69500
3 THE STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM APPEAL COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM
2025 -26, THRISSUR., PIN - 679001
4 THE STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM ORGANISING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN / GENERAL CONVENER, KERALA
W.P.(C). No.1345 OF 2026
2026:KER:3169
2
SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2025-26, THRISSUR., PIN - 679001
5 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (DDE),
JOINT CONVENER, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001
6 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER (DEO),
CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT APPEAL COMMITTEE, ALAPPUZHA., PIN -
688005
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:
W.P.(C). No.1345 OF 2026
2026:KER:3169
3
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.1345 of 2026
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the event 'Violen Western'
in the Alappuzha District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. He
secured third place with 'A' Grade. Aggrieved by the evaluation
conducted, he preferred an appeal. By Ext. P2 order dated
30.12.2025, 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 his performance on the day of the event was par
excellence and he ought to have been awarded first place with
A grade. Petitioner contended that the Judges erroneously
placed him in a wrong position due to a faulty evaluation, which
is required to be set aside and he be placed in the first place.
The learned counsel also submitted that the judges for the
W.P.(C). No.1345 OF 2026
2026:KER:3169
event did not have the necessary qualifications to judge the
event and that the petitioner had even applied under the Right
to Information Act for obtaining their qualifications, which has
not even been provided and the petitioner ought to be
permitted to participate in the State School Kalolsavam.
4. The Appellate Authority considered his 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
W.P.(C). No.1345 OF 2026
2026:KER:3169
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.
7. The contention regarding lack of qualification of the
judges was not raised before the appellate committee.
Moreover, the said committee had found that there was a
difference of 14 marks between the petitioner and the 1 st prize
winner. In the absence of any material available regarding
either the qualification or the lack of qualification of the judges
W.P.(C). No.1345 OF 2026
2026:KER:3169
and considering the difference in marks between the petitioner
and the 1st prize winner being substantial, I am of the view that
the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
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 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.
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
SMF
W.P.(C). No.1345 OF 2026
2026:KER:3169
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 1345 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED
03.12.2025
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO DATED
30.12.2025
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF MALAYALA MANORAMA NEWSPAPER
CUTTING DATED 09.01.2026
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
