The court emphasized the limited grounds for judicial interference in subjective evaluations by experts in performing arts.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner was a participant in the event ‘Bharathanatyam Girls-HSS General’ at the Thiruvananthapuram Revenue District School Kalolsavam 2025-2026, and secured 8^th position. As a result, she was not quali to participate in the State level School Kalolsavam. Aggrieved by the position she secured in the event, an appeal was preferred before the appellate authority. However, by order dated 12.12.2025, produced as Ext.P11, the appeal was rejected. This writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid order.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.

3. Petitioner contends that, even before the event ‘Bharathanatyam, commenced, she had raised a complaint against one of the judges and hence she was purposely pushed down to the eighth position. Even prior to the commencement of the event, petitioner allegedly filed Ext.P7 complaint, raising disputes against one of the judges of the event, pointing out that the said judge was the same person in the last year’s Kalolsavam as well and that he would give first prize to a specific participant. Subsequently, after the event, the participant named by the petitioner in Ext.P7 won the prize. According to the petitioner, the results are totally erroneous, and she ought to be permitted to participate in the State level School Kalolsavam.

4. In the impugned order, the appellate authority considered the contentions raised by the petitioner and came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the allegations. The appellate authority had perused the videographs of the performance of the petitioner as well as that of the first-place holder and came to the conclusion that first-place holder stood far superior than the petitioner in terms of the performance. The report of the stage manager was also perused. The remarks of the judges were considered and no anomalies were identified. The appellate authority also came to the conclusion that the judges were competent and qualified to evaluate the performances, and therefore, concluded that the allegations of the petitioner were baseless.

5. It is noticed from the impugned order there is a reference to the first -

place holder of the last years Kalolsavam in HSS category. However, petitioner was in the High School category in the last year and therefore there is a factual error in the consideration of the contentions by the appellate authority. Even though in the impugned order there is such an error in relation to the last years results as the petitioner was only in the 10^th standard and had competed in the high school section, the same by itself is not a reason to interfere with the impugned order. In the performance evaluation by the appellate authority, specific reasons have been given regarding the superior performance of the first-place holder. Though other contentions have also been canvassed by the petitioner, especially regarding the tying of a towel around the foot of the first-place holder, the same cannot be a reason to interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India .

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 con