Courts refrain from interfering in expert evaluations unless exceptional circumstances arise, recognizing the relative nature of performance assessments.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner was a participant in the event 'Arabanamuttu'

(Boys) in the Thrissur District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. He secured the fourth place with 'A' Grade. Aggrieved by the evaluation conducted, he preferred an appeal. By Exhibit-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 petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.

3. The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the score sheet does not contain a seal as required by Clause 10.13 of the Manual for School Kalolsavam and also that the stage was not prepared as required for an effective performance. It was also contended that there was defect in the sound system provided at the stage and also that his performance on the day of the event was par excellence and he ought to have been awarded the first place with A grade. Petitioner contended that the Judges erroneously placed him in the fourth position which is required to be set aside and he be placed in the first place.

4. The Appellate Authority had considered her contentions and rejected the same after verifying the score sheets, Stage Manager's report, videograph and also the evaluation sheet. The Appellate Authority also noted that there was a difference of 12 marks between the first place holder and the petitioner and that the performance on the day of the event was not up to the mark as claimed by him. It was also noticed that the technical defects pointed out by the petitioner was not in existence.

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 petitioner had not raised before the Appellate Authority any contention regarding the absence of seal on the score sheet, since such a contention has been raised, I perused Clause 10.13 of the Manual for School Kalolsavam. A plain reading of the said Clause reveals that what is required is only to keep the mark list and the tabulation sheet in a sealed cover in the Office of the Deputy Director of Education for three months. The Clause does not stipulate that the mark list and tabulation sheet must contain a seal. Therefore, the said contention of the petitioner is rejected even on merits.

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 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.

8. In the decisions in Sweety v. State of Kera