The court cannot interfere in performance evaluations unless exceptional circumstances justify such intervention, reaffirming the principle of judicial restraint under Article 226.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

MONDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 22ND POUSHA, 1947

WP(C) NO. 949 OF 2026

PETITIONER: NIVEDHYA V.

AGED 17 YEARS

D/O. SUMNISHA T RESIDING AT THAYYIL THAZHATH

HOUSE, EDAKKAD P O, WEST HILL KOZHIKODE- 673 005,

REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN

SUMNISHA T., AGED 43 YEARS, D/O. PRABHAKARAN,

RESIDING AT THAYYIL THAZHATH HOUSE,

EDAKKAD P. O., WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,

PIN-673005.

BY ADVS.

SHRI.AHAMMAD SACHIN K.

SHRI.MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.

SMT.NAYANA VARGHESE

SMT.RIA VARGHESE SHRI.JERRY PETER

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO. 206, SECOND FLOOR,

SOUTH SANDWICH BLOCK, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GENERAL.P.O.,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695001.

2 THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL

EDUCATION/GENERAL CONVENER

KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2025-2026, ROOM

NO. 206, SECOND FLOOR, SOUTH SANDWICH BLOCK,

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GENERAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695001.

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION/THE JOINT GENERAL CONVENER KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2025-2026, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE REVENUE DISTRICT, MANANCHIRA.P.O. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673014.

4 THE CHAIRMAN APPEAL COMMITTEE OF REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM, HIGH SCHOOL WING, MANANCHIRA.P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673014.

OTHER PRESENT:

SMT. AMMINIKUTTY K., SR. 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.949 OF 2026 ---------------------------------------------

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2026

JUDGMENT

Petitioner's team was a participant in the event 'Vanchipattu' in the Kozhikode Revenue District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. Her team secured only 'A' Grade. Aggrieved by the evaluation conducted, petitioner preferred an appeal. By Ext.P2 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 Vanchipattu performance on the day of the event was par excellence and her team ought to have been awarded first place with A grade. Petitioner contended that the Judges erroneously placed her team in a wrong position due to a faulty evaluation, which is required to be set aside and her team 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 score sheet did not contain the separate grounds for evaluation, I am of the view that the same is not a mandatory requirement. In another similar writ petition, I have already considered this issue and came to the conclusion that the guidelines do not require the criteria for judging to be mentioned in the score sheet.

7. Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there was