Kerala High Court
Aarsha Krishnan vs The Director Of General Education on 15 January, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
W.P.(C). No.1302 OF 2026
2026:KER:3159
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. 1302 OF 2026
PETITIONERS:
1 AARSHA KRISHNAN
AGED 17 YEARS
(MINOR)D/O REMYA, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, REMYA, W/O
UNNIKRISHNAN, K. SOURADHI, THATTACHAEY, NILESHWAR,
KASARGOD,, PIN - 671314
2 RITHUNANDA P
AGED 17 YEARS
(MINOR), D/O VICHITHRA, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER,
VICHITHRA, W/O BINU B., THEYYARATHANAM HOUSE, ACHIKANAM,
KASARGOD,, PIN - 671531
3 NIVEDIYA DAS
AGED 17 YEARS
(MINOR), D/O SAJITHA, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, SAJITHA,
W/O DURGADAS M.V., THEERTHAM, VELASWARAM, HARIPURAM,
AJANUR, KASARGOD,, PIN - 671353
4 DEVANANDANA SURESH
AGED 17 YEARS
(MINOR), D/O SHAIMA, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, SHAIMA,
W/O SURESH, DEVADEYAM, MANIKOTH, ANJANUR, KASARGOD,, PIN -
671531
5 DIVYA A
AGED 17 YEARS
(MINOR), D/O SOUMYA, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, SOUMYA,
W/O DAMODARAN V., VAZHAKODAN VEEDU, ERIYA PO, PULLUR,
KASARGOD,, PIN - 671531
6 ADHYA K
AGED 17 YEARS
(MINOR), D/O LALITHIKA, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER,
LALITHIKA CHEDIROAD, UPPILIKAI PO, NILESHWAR, KASARGOD,,
PIN - 671314
7 LAKSHMI NARAYANAN N
W.P.(C). No.1302 OF 2026
2026:KER:3159
2
AGED 17 YEARS
(MINOR), D/O ANJALI, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, ANJALI,
W/O NARAYANAN, MENAPPURAM HOUSE, MELANGOT, HOSDURG,
KASARGOD,, PIN - 671315
BY ADV SRI.LIJU. M.P
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
O/O THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695105
2 KALOLSAVAM COMMITTEE CONVENOR
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KASARGOD O/O THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, VIDYANAGAR,
KASARGOD, PIN - 671123
3 DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KASARGOD
O/O THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KARNADAKKAD, KASARGOD,
PIN - 671123
4 CHAIRMAN APPEAL COMMITTEE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KASARGOD O/O THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, VIDYANAGAR,
KASARGOD, PIN - 671123
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.1302 OF 2026
2026:KER:3159
3
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.1302 of 2026
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioners were participants in the event 'Group Dance (Girls)' in the Kasargod District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. They secured second place with 'A' Grade. Aggrieved by the evaluation conducted, they preferred an appeal. By Ext. P1 order dated 02.01.2026, the appeal was rejected against which this writ petition has been preferred.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader.
3. The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioners sis that their 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 them in a wrong position due to a faulty evaluation, which is required to be set aside and they be placed in the first place. The learned counsel pointed out that the objections W.P.(C). No.1302 OF 2026 2026:KER:3159 4 raised in the appeal was not properly considered by the appellate authority.
4. The Appellate Authority considered their 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 W.P.(C). No.1302 OF 2026 2026:KER:3159 5 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. The appellate authority had noticed that there was a difference of seven marks between the petitioners and the 1st prize winner. Further, the objection raised are all questions of factual disputes which this Court cannot decide at this juncture.
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 W.P.(C). No.1302 OF 2026 2026:KER:3159 6 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 SMF W.P.(C). No.1302 OF 2026 2026:KER:3159 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 1302 OF 2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DDEKGD/2581/2025C3 PASSED IN APPEAL DATED 02.01.26 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL APPLICATION FORM //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE