Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 689
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
RANJITH KUMAR K.K. – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 48618 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SHREEHARI K.K., SRI.K.RAJESH KHANNA
For the Respondents: SRI.SREEJITH V.S., GP
The court reiterated that it cannot replace expert evaluations in performance assessments unless exceptional circumstances are proven.
Headnote:The case revolves around the dismissal of an appeal by a father regarding his daughter’s participation in a cultural competition. The Court found adequate justification in the appellate authority's decision, acknowledging expertise in such evaluations. The Court determined it lacks jurisdiction to overturn expert assessments of performance quality. The primary issues were whether reasons for the dismissal were recorded and adequacy of the evaluation process. The court emphasized that it should not interfere unless exceptional circumstances arise, reaffirming respect for expert judgments in subjective assessments. In conclusion, the writ petition is dismissed due to lack of merit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal related to cultural event participation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court respects expert evaluations and avoids interference. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. the writ petition is dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 6) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the father of a participant in the Kannur District School Kalolsavam, 2025-2026. The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal relating to his daughter’s claim for participation in the State School Kalolsavam. He seeks to quash the order rejecting his appeal in connection with the Thiruvathira competition at the aforementioned School Kalolsavam and seeks a declaration that the rejection of his appeal without recording reasons as mandated in the manual is illegal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner’s daughter was a participant in the Thiruvathira event of the Kannur District School Kalolsavam 2025-2026. The petitioner’s daughter’s team was placed in second place. However, there is a difference of 7 marks between the first place and the second place. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the appellate authority considered the contentions, heard the appellant, perused the stage manager’s report and came to the conclusion that there was no anomaly in the evaluation of the performance of the participants. It was also mentioned that the first-place holders’ performance was far superior to that of the petitioner’s daughter’s team and therefore there is no cause for the appeal to be allowed.
4. 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.
5. Moreover, in the absence of any exceptional circumstances pointed out, this Court ought not to interfere in matters relating to decisions by the judges in youth festivals. Reference in this regard can be made to the decisions in Sweety vs. State of Kerala ( 1994 KHC 216 ) and inDevna Sumesh vs. State of Kerala (2022 KHC 8081) apart from the Division Bench judgment inManas Manohar v.
Registrar, Kerala Lok Ayukta and Others [ 2022 (5) KHC 479 ] and Additional Director of Public Instructions and Others v. Anagha and Others [ 2022 (5) KHC 473 ].
6. Since the appellate order has given sufficient reasons for dismissing the appeal, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the appellate authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India .
Accordingly, this writ petition lacks merit and it is dismissed.
Ssd/-Sd/-
