Supreme Court of IndiaGuruvayoor Devaswom Managing ... vs Chairman, Guruvayoor ... on 19 January, 1996Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (2), 358 1996 SCALE (2)215, AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 3337, 1996 AIR SCW 2670, (1996) 1 SERVLR 280, (1996) 74 FACLR 2564, (1996) 1 KER LT 450, (1996) 2 SCT 611, 1996 (7) SCC 505, 1996 SCC (L&S) 625, (1996) 1 SCR 823 (SC), (1996) 33 ATC 315, (1996) 2 JT 358 (SC)Author:K. RamaswamyBench:K. Ramaswamy,G.T NanavatiPETITIONER:
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.