A court cannot intervene in performance evaluations by expert judges unless exceptional circumstances exist.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner’s team participated in the event 'Margamkali' in the Thrissur Revenue District School Kalolsavam 2025-26. Her team secured third place with 'A' Grade. Aggrieved by the evaluation conducted, she 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 her team’s performance on the day of the event was par excellence and ought to have been awarded the first place with A grade. Petitioner contended that the Judges erroneously placed her team in the third position which is required to be set aside and her team be placed in the first place. The learned counsel further pointed out that judges for the event lack sufficient qualification.

4. The Appellate Authority had considered the 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 ‘9’ marks between the first place holder and the petitioner’s team and that the performance on the day of the event was not up to the mark as claimed by her.

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 has raised the contention regarding incompetence of the judges, no material has been brought before this Court to support such a conclusion. Further, the petitioner was placed only in the third position with a difference of ‘9’ marks from that of the first prize winner. In such circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to grant permission to the petitioner to participate in the next level of Kalolsavam. Hence, I find no merit in this writ petition. 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. In the decisions inSweety v. State of Kerala [ 1994 KHC 216 ] and in Devna Sumesh v. State of Kerala [2022 KHC 8081] apart from the Division Bench judgment inManas Manohar v. Registrar, Kerala Lok Ayuktha and Others [ 2022 (5) KHC 479 ] and Additional Director of Public Instructions and Others v. Anagha and Others ( 2022 (5) KHC 473 ), it has been observed that this Court would not be justified in interfering with the assessment of performance or the order of the Appellate Committee in exercise of the discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , in the absence of any exceptional reasons.

8.