Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 1983
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
DEVAPRIYA KIRAN, PARVATHI KRISHNA K., SWATHIKA K T., NAYANIKA V., SHREYA SHYANTH, NIYA N NRIPESH, PARVATHY R NAIR, VIAGA RATHEESH, PARVATHY S NAIR, DEVI PRIYA M.P. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1913 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.RAMEEZ NOOH, SRI.P.RAFTHAS, SMT.FATHIMA K., SHRI.DANIC ANTONY, SMT.KRISHNENDU K.V., SMT.JENNA SUSAN BAJI
For the Respondents: SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GP
Judicial review under Article 226 does not permit interference with evaluation results in the absence of exceptional reasons.
Headnote:In the present case, the petitioners contested their evaluation in the 'Chavittu Nadakam' event during the 2025-26 School Kalolsavam, seeking reversal of an appellate order that dismissed their appeal. The court emphasized the exceptional circumstances required for judicial intervention under Article 226, citing a consistent precedent in cases such as Sweety v. State of Kerala. The judgment firmly rejected the appeal due to a lack of exceptional reasons to reassess the evaluation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners participated in a performance event and were dissatisfied with evaluation results. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court noted vague arguments against the appellate authority's decision. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court explained limitations on interfering with performance evaluations. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. established criteria for judicial intervention in performance disputes. (Para 7) |
| 5. final judgment confirmed dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
Petitioners participated in the event 'Chavittu Nadakam (High School - General Section' in the Kozhikode Revenue District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. They secured fourth place with 'A' Grade. Aggrieved by the evaluation conducted, they preferred an appeal. By Ext.P3 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 petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the appellate authority dismissed the appeal without giving any specific reasons and that its decision is vague. It was also pointed out that there was no signature on the score sheet in relation to the petitioners’ marks by one of the judges.
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 contentions raised by the petitioners are vague and the same cannot be a reason to interfere in a youth festival, that too at this late hour. The State Kalolsavam started on 14.01.2026 and the petitioner has filed this writ petition only on 15.01.2026, while the impugned order is dated
04.12.2025. Tthe delay stares against the petitioners.
7. In the decisions inSweety v. State of Kerala [1994 KHC 216] and in Devna Sumesh v. State of Kerala [2022 KHC 8081] apart from the Division Bench judgments inManas 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/-
