GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITIEEversusCHAIRMAN, GURUVAYOOR D.EVASWOM MANAGING COMMITIEE AND ORS.

        GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITIEE                                 A
                            v.
        CHAIRMAN, GURUVAYOOR D.EVASWOM MANAGING
                    COMMITIEE AND ORS.

                                JANUARY 19, 19%
)               · [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) .
                                                                               ..B
                  .   ..
            Service Law:

          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. ·
                                                                                F
            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:                    G

            Leave granted.

            Application for impleadment is rejecte.d.
                                                                                     •
            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      asobserver 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.

           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.
F
    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.
         GUR UVAYOOR 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 the Court to associate itself with the said
    process of conducting the examinations by nominating its judicial officer in      B
    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, associat-
    ing 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       C
    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.
                                                                                      D
J
    G.N.                                                         Appeal allowed.