[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ishani S Nair vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
WP(C) No.1666 of 2026 1
2026:KER:3480
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. 1666 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
ISHANI S NAIR
AGED 16 YEARS
D/O SHINOJ, GOKULAM HOUSE, MOKAVUR, EDAKKAD P.O.,
WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN
NEETHU MOL P.N., AGED 35 YEARS, W/O SHINOJ P.N.,
GOKULAM HOUSE, MOKAVUR, EDAKKAD P.O., WEST HILL,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673005
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 DISTRICT, 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 DISTRICT, PIN - 673001
WP(C) No.1666 of 2026 2
2026:KER:3480
OTHER PRESENT:
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:
WP(C) No.1666 of 2026 3
2026:KER:3480
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS,J
------------------------------------
WP(C) No.1666 of 2026
------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner's team participated in the event
'Mohiniyattam' in the Kozhikoder District School Kalolsavam
2025-26 in HSS General Category. They secured 4th place with
'A' Grade. 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 learned counsel pointed out that there was no
reference to the objections raised, and the appeal has been
rejected without any basis.
4. The Appellate Authority considered the 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
2026:KER:3480
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 impugned order is dated 04.12.2025, and the
petitioner approached this Court only on 14.01.2026, that is,
after the State Kalolsavam commenced. Though it is pleaded
that the petitioner approached the Lokayuktha in the meantime,
the order of the Lokayuktha has not been produced. Moreover,
the objections raised by the petitioner are not peculiar to the
petitioner's team and the same are all general and vague
objections, which are all disputed questions of fact and cannot
be considered by this Court in this writ petition.
7. In the decisions in Sweety v. State of Kerala
[1994 KHC 216] and in Devna Sumesh v. State of Kerala
2026:KER:3480
[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 no exceptional reasons are 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:3480
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 1666 OF 2026
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEETS OF
MOHINIYATTAM (GIRLS) HSS GENERAL IN THE
KOZHIKODE REVENUE DISTRICT LEVEL
KALOLSAVAM ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF EDUCATION, DATED 27-11-2025
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
C2/5390/2025/D.D.E.K.K.D DATED
04.12.2025 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DIARY OF THE STAGE
MANAGER DATED 27.11.2025
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
