Court cannot evaluate performance quality in arts without exceptional reasons to interfere with expert assessments.

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. 1022 OF 2026

PETITIONER:

R S BALAMANI

AGED 16 YEARS

D/O SATHEESH. S, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER

SATHEESH. S, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O SOMANATHAN NAIR, SOMATHEERTHOM, THEKKE NADA, HARIPAD, KERALA, PIN

- 690514 BY ADVS.

SHRI.SIDHARTH BIMAL

SMT.DIVYA C BALAN

SHRI.P.D.SUBRAMANIAN NAMPOOTHIRI

SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN R.

SMT.GOWRI V. NAIR

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION

DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

3 THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

CHAIRMAN, REVENUE DISTRICT LEVEL APPEAL

COMMITTEE, ALPPUZHA REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL

KALOLSAVAM 2025 26, OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR

OF GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -

695014

4 THE GENERAL CONVENER

ALPPUZHA REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2025

26, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645

5 THE GENERAL CONVENER KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2025 26, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

6 JOINT COMMISSIONER PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695012 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.1022 of 2026 ------------------------------------

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2026

JUDGMENT

Petitioner was a participant in the event 'Mono Act' in the Alappuzha District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. She secured second place with 'A' Grade. Aggrieved by the evaluation conducted, she preferred an appeal. By Ext. P4 order dated 30.12.2025, 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 her 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. 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 h