Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 807
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
ALAKANANDA S – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 648 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.STEPHY K REGI
For the Respondents: SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP
Judicial intervention in performance evaluations requires exceptional circumstances; otherwise, the evaluator's decisions stand.
Headnote:The court examined the appeal concerning the participant's performance in a cultural event and her claims regarding an erroneous evaluation. It noted that exceptional circumstances must exist before judicial interference is warranted in such evaluations. The authority's decision was supported by factual assessments and expert evaluations, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the writ petition due to a lack of exceptional reasons.
Result: The writ petition is hence dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 22ND POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 648 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
ALAKANANDA S
AGED 16 YEARS
D/O SYAM KUMAR S (MINOR) STD.XI, S.N.G.H.S,
CHEMPAZHANTHY, RESIDING AT TC 10/26-5,
VRINDAVANAM, AVUKULAM, CHEMPAZHANTHY P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HER
FATHER AND GUARDIAN, SYAM KUMAR S, S/O SAMBA
SIVAN, AGED 51 YEARS, TC 10/26-5, VRINDAVANAM,
AVUKULAM, CHEMPAZHANTHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN – 695587.
BY ADV SHRI.STEPHY K REGI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.
2 ORGANIZING COMMITTEE KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM
2025-2026
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL CO-ORDINATOR, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN – 695001.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CHALAI P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695036.
4 THE GENERAL CONVENOR-PROGRAMME COMMITTEE FOR KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2025-2026 OFFICE OF DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION, DPI BHAVAN, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO.648 OF 2026 ---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the events 'Bharathanatyam' and 'Nadodi Nrutham'. She secured third place. Aggrieved by the evaluation conducted, she preferred an appeal. By Ext.P1 order dated 12.12.2025, 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 Bharathanatyam and Nadodi Nrutham performance on the day of the event was par excellence and she ought to have been awarded first place with A grade. Petitioner contended that the Judges erroneously placed her in a wrong position due to a faulty evaluation, which is required to be set aside and she be placed in the first place. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the petitioner had to participate in Bharathanatyam as well as Nadodi Nrutham and did not have sufficient gap in between the two time slots, which affected her performance.
4. The appellate authority considered 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 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 time gap between the two slots of Nadodi Nrutham and Bharathanatyam is a matter, which is not within the control of the organisers, but is a matter solely within the prerogative of the participant. If the time slots of two events collide with each other, the participant has to manage those time slots. That cannot be a reason to interfere with the evaluation of the performance. 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 be
