SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 1089

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
Suo Motu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
SSCR NO. 67 OF 2024
Decided on : 16-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : ADVS. T. RAMPRASAD UNNI, K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.), S.M. PRASANTH SHEHIN S., DEVIKA S.
For the Respondent: SRI.S.RAJMOHAN, SR. GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.G.BIJU, STANDING COUNSEL, TDB, SMT.SAYUJYA RADHAKRISHNAN, AMICUS CURIAE FOR SPECIAL COMMISSIONER, SABARIMALA., ADVS. Pranoy K. Kottaram, K.M SATHYANATHA MENON K.M, SIVARAMAN P.L(K/1457/2020), ATHUL BABU(K/940/2018)

The selection process for Melsanthies must adhere to established guidelines, ensuring transparency and fairness, with the requirement for the Board to provide reasons for decisions affecting candidates' eligibility.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 - Selection process for Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms - Allegations of non-compliance with experience requirements and procedural irregularities in the selection process - Court emphasized the necessity of adhering to established guidelines and the importance of transparency in selection. (Paras 1, 2.5, 10, 12, 41)

(B) Judicial Review - Scope of judicial review under Article 226 - Court cannot reassess merits of individual candidates but must ensure adherence to procedural fairness and guidelines. (Paras 43, 44)

(C) Natural Justice - Requirement for recording reasons in administrative decisions - The Board must provide reasons for decisions affecting candidates' eligibility. (Paras 38, 39)

Facts of the case:
The selection process for Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms for the year 1200 ME was challenged due to allegations that candidates without the requisite experience were included in the selection list. The court found procedural violations in the selection process, particularly regarding the substitution of experience certificates.

Findings of Court:
The court directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to proceed with the draw of lots for the selection of Melsanthies while excluding candidates who did not meet the experience requirements.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the selection process, adherence to experience requirements, and the necessity of transparency and fairness in the selection process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the selection process must comply with established guidelines, and the Board is required to provide reasons for its decisions regarding candidates' eligibility.

Result: SSCR No.67 of 2024 is disposed of with directions for the draw of lots, and W.P.

(C)No.35934 of 2024 is dismissed.

ORDER :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The issue involved in SSCR No.67 of 2024 and W.P.(C)No.35934 of 2024 relates to the selection process of Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms for the year 1200 ME (2024-25).

2. SSCR No.67 of 2024:- The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala has filed this report regarding the selection process of Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms for the year 1200ME (2024-25).

2.1. On 01.10.2024, when this SSCR came up for consideration, Registry placed a report dated 30.09.2024 of Honourable Mr. Justice T.R. Ramachandran Nair, a former Judge of this Court, who was appointed as the Observer, by the order of this Court dated 05.09.2024 in SSCR No.64 of 2024, to oversee the proceedings for selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms, at the Travancore Devaswom Board Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board produced a sealed cover containing the mark lists, tabulation sheets and select lists of the candidates for the draw of lots for selection to the post of Melsanthies at Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms for the year 1200ME, along with 7 compact discs (Sabarimala-4 and Malikappuram-3).

2.2. Registry has received a complaint dated 30.09.2024 in which it was alleged that a few candidates who do not have the required 10 years’ continuous experience as Melsanthi, within a period of 12 years, as stipulated in the notification, were also included in the list of candidates to be interviewed. Therefore, by the order dated 03.10.2024, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court the files containing the applications made for selection of Melsanthies at Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms for the year 1200ME, along with its enclosures.

2.3. In terms of the directions contained in the order dated 03.10.2024, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board has made available for the perusal of this Court, the applications made for selection as Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms for the year 1200 ME, along with enclosures.

2.4. By the order dated 08.10.2024, Registry was directed to keep in safe custody another two complaints received regarding the selection process of Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms for the year 1200ME. By that order, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to the appeals, if any, considered by the Board in terms of clause (13) of the notification for selection as Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms for the year 1200ME, which provides for an appeal against the recommendation of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer.

2.5. On 10.10.2024, when this report came up for consideration, from the files, this Court noticed that the Travancore Devaswom Board gave an opportunity to those candidates, who failed to submit applications pursuant to the notification for the year 1200ME, along with an experience certificate in the prescribed format, to submit a fresh experience certificate, within a specified time limit. A few among such applicants submitted fresh experience certificates, which were taken into consideration for including their names in the list of candidates selected for the interview. This Court noticed that such a procedure adopted by the Travancore Devaswom Board, based on a proceedings signed by the President and Members of the Board, as discernible from the files, is in violation of the specific direction contained in the order of this Court dated 04.07.2022 in DBA No.5 of 2022, wherein it was made clear that the Board shall not permit any candidate to substitute the experience certificate enclosed along with the application, which shall be specified in the format of the experience certificate and also in the notification. From the select list of candidates for the dr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top