Judicial review under Article 226 does not extend to evaluations made by expert bodies in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

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. 1035 OF 2026

PETITIONER : ASIF ALI P.M

AGED 17 YEARS

MINOR, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN – FATHER,

MANSOOR ALI P.A.,S/O ALYAR,

PARANAYIL HOUSE, VENGOLA,

ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683556

BY ADVS.

SRI.MANSOOR ALI

SHRI.MUHAMMED SUHAIL P.A.

RESPONDENTS :

1 CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE, ERNAKULAM REVENUE

DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM 2025-2026

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O,

ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,

PIN - 682030

2 THE CONVENOR, PROGRAMME COMMITTEE,

ERNAKULAM REVENUE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM 2025-2026

ST ALBERTS HIGHER SECONDERY SCHOOL,

ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

3 THE CONVENOR, PROGRAMME COMMITTEE,

64TH KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2026

PROGRAMME OFFICE, GOVERNMENT MODEL THRISSUR,

PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680020 SMT. AMMINIKUTTY K., SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER 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.1035 of 2026 ------------------------------------

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2026

JUDGMENT

Petitioner's team was a participant in the event 'Kolkali' in the Ernakulam District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. They secured 4^th position and 'A' grade in the event. Aggrieved by the evaluation conducted, he preferred an appeal. By Ext. P4 order dated 06.12.2025, 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 his team's performance on the day of the event was par excellence and his team ought to have been awarded first place with 'A' grade. Petitioner contended that the Judges erroneously placed his team in a wrong position due to a faulty evaluation, which is required to be set aside and he be placed in the first place.

4. The Appellate Authority considered his 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's team 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 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.

7. Though the learned Counsel pointed out that the petitioner had not actually fell unconscious, but had fallen down due to a defect in the stage arrangements, I am of the view that the Appellate Authority has specifically considered the said contention and came to the conclusion after watc