Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 812
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
THEERTHA RAJESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1062 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.ARUN FRANCIS, SMT.DEENA JOSEPH, SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN K., SHRI.AKHIL SHAJI, SHRI.BASIL SAJAN, SMT.NANDA SURENDRAN
For the Respondents: SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP
The court lacks jurisdiction to interfere in performance evaluation absent exceptional circumstances under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Headnote:This judgment relates to a writ petition contesting the evaluation results of a Folk Dance competition. The petitioner, who secured second place, claimed a faulty evaluation process impacted the results. The court found insufficient grounds to interfere with the appellate authority's decision, noting the lack of exceptional circumstances necessary for such interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized its non-expertise in assessing performing arts, thereby validating the appellate authority's decision not to alter the evaluation. In view of these findings, the court dismissed the writ petition.
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. 1062 OF 2026
PETITIONERS:
THEERTHA RAJESH
AGED 15 YEARS
VATTAMALAYIL, MULLARIKUDY, KONNATHADY
P.O,UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
FATHER, RAJESH V. S, AGED 46 YEARS, VATTAMALAYIL, MULLARIKUDY, KONNATHADY P.O,UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI,
KERALA, PIN - 685571
BY ADVS.
SRI.ARUN FRANCIS SMT.DEENA JOSEPH
SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN K.
SHRI.AKHIL SHAJI SHRI.BASIL SAJAN
SMT.NANDA SURENDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO EDUCATIONAL
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE GENERAL CONVENOR
KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2025-26, THRISSUR,
KERALA, PIN - 680001
3 THE CONVENOR
IDUKKI DISTRICT KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2024-25,
MURICKASSERY,, PIN - 685604
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER IDUKKI, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685584 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.
---------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 1062 of 2026 ---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a participant in the event 'Folk Dance' in the Idukki District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. She secured second place with A grade. Aggrieved by the evaluation conducted, she preferred an appeal. By Ext.P2 order dated 16.12.2025, 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 Folk Dance 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.
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. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner had stepped on her skirt during the performance, the appellate authority, while dismissing the appeal as per Ext.P2, specifically observed that the same did not affect her balance or the 'thalam'. Even otherwise the defect pointed out was not that of the organisers, but can only be attributed to a mistake of the petitioner, which cannot be a reason to interfere with the evaluation.
7. 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
