Devaswom Managing Committee Vs. Chairman, Guruvayoor Devaswommanaging Committee
& Ors  INSC 100 (19 January 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.Nanavati G.T. (J)
JT 1996 (2) 358 1996 SCALE (2)215
O R D
for impleadment is rejected.
have heard Shri Venugopals learned senior counsel for the appellant and also
the learned counsel, Shri Vaidyanathan, on behalf of the intervenor-said to be
devotee. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the impugned order has
stated that on November 2, 1995, the Court had chalked out a programme to
conduct the examinations and interviews for selection of the candidates to the
posts of lower/upper division clerks in Guruvayoor Dewaswom and the C.M.P. has
been filed for direction to entrust the duty of setting out and printing of the
question papers for the written test. After hearing the counsel, the Court was
of the view that the said responsibility could safely be entrusted to the
Administrator or Guruvayoor Devaswom. Accordingly the Administrator was
directed to get the question paper set by competent persons with utmost
secrecy. The Court also directed the Administrator to get them printed for
distribution only at the examination center on the date of the written test.
Subsequently, on November 2, 1995 it directed the conduct of interviews by a
committee consisting of the Chairman, the Administrator and Mr.M. Gopalan,
member of Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and a practicing advocate of
the High Court.
Director of Training, High Court was directed to be as observer in the
interview In the impugned order dated 2.11.1995, the High Court has replaced Gopalan
as member of the committee and ordered that the Director should be one of the
members of the Committee. This later order is now impugned in this appeal.
the matter had come up on 12.1.1996 for admission, the devotee sought to
intervene. We directed him to file an affidavit whether any allegations have
been made against Mr. Gopalan in the High Court for being replaced with the
Director and accordingly he had taken time. Today, we are informed that though
an affidavit has been prepared, that is not reflective of correct facts and
counsel had some contra coral instructions. We deprecate this tendency to file
an affidavit and to give oral contra instructions.Party must state true and
correct facts in the affidavit and should stand by them and take orders from
Shri Vaidyanathan has correctly taken the responsibility in not filing that
affidavit which is inconsistent with the oral instructions. The devotee does
not have the courage to make allegations against Gopalan. Under these
circumstances, we proceed on the footing that no allegations have been made
against Gopalan for his being replaced with the Director, a Judicial offence.
is right in his contention that it would be salutary to leave the selection to
the Selection committee constituted to conduct the written test and interview
of the candidates without any involvement or active participation by the
judicial arm of the Court in the process of selection. It is not proper for the
Court to associate itself with the said process of conducting the examinations
by nominating its judicial officer in the process of selection.
the Court itself would come into criticism for associating its officers with
selection of the candidates, in the event of allegations made against the said
selections. We find great force in the contention of Shri Venugopal. Under
those circumstances, associating a judicial officer with the selection is not
conducive and proper. In the absence of any allegation against Gopalan and any
indication to that effect in the order of the High Court, we think that the
High Court was not justified in removing him from the Committee.
appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances. without costs.