GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITIEE versus CHAIRMAN, GURUVAYOOR D.EVASWOM MANAGING COMMITIEE AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 823 · Decided: 19-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

) 
GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITIEE 
A 
v. 
CHAIRMAN, GURUVAYOOR D.EVASWOM MANAGING 
COMMITIEE AND ORS. 
JANUARY 19, 19% 
· [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) . 
. .. 
Service Law: 
B .. 
Selection for the pose of clerks in Gumvayoor Devaswon.-Hig/1 Court C 
entlUSting the responsibility Co the Administrator of Che Devaswon.-Direccor 
of Training. High Court directed. co be Obseiver-Lacer a;e High . Court 
replacing the Administrator with the Director of Training-Held: Associating 
a judicial officer with Che selection not conducive and proper-Jn the absence 
of any allegation against the Administrator, High Court not justified in 
removing him from the Selection Committee AffidaviHiling of in Court-
D 
Parties to State true and correct facts, stand by Chem and take orders from: . 
Co~ 
Tendency to file affidavit and to give oral contra instmccions-Depre-
cated-l'ractice & Procedure. 
· 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2933 of E 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.95 of the Kerala High 
Court in C.M.P. No. 32587195 in O.P. No. 10608 of 1993. 
K.K. Veriugopal, Fazlin Anam for the Appellant. · 
R.F. Nariman, Dhruv Mehta ~nd K.L. Mehta for the Re~pondents. 
C.S. Vaidyanathan and K. V. Viswanathan and K. V .. Venkataraman 
for the intervenors. 
The following order of the Court was delivered: 
Leave granted. 
Application for impleadment is rejecte.d. 
F 
G 
We have heard. Shrl Venugopal, learned seni~r cciunsel for the H 
823 
• 
824 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] l S.C.R. 
A 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 of the posts of lower/upper 
B 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 Ad-
ministrator or Guruvayoor Devaswom. Accordingly the Administrator was 
directed to get the question paper set by competent persons with utmost 
C secrecy. The Court also directed the Administrator to get them printed for 
distribution only at the examination centre 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 
D 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 
E 
appeal. 
F 
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 oral instruc-
tions. We deprecate this tendency to file an affidavit and to give oral co11tra 
instructions. Party must state true and correct facts in the affidavit and 
should stand by them and take orders from the Court. Obviously, Shri 
G Vaidyanathan has correctly taken the responsibility in not filing that af-
fidavit 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 
H offence. 
( 
J 
GUR UV A YOOR DEVASWOM MG. COMMITfEE v. CHAIRMAN 825 
Shri Venugopal is right in his contention that it would be salutory to A 
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.