http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.