PETITIONER: GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE Vs. RESPONDENT: CHAIRMAN, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOMMANAGING COMMITTEE & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/01/1996 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. NANAVATI G.T. (J) CITATION: JT 1996 (2) 358 1996 SCALE (2)215 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Application for impleadment is rejected.
We 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.
The 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.
When 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 the Court.
Obviously, 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.
Shri Venugopal 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.
Otherwise, 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.
The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the
circumstances. without costs.