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
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
Baidyanath Yadav v. Adithya Narayan Roy [(2020) 16 SCC 799]
Chairman and Managing Director
Krishnan Namboothiri S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2015 (5) KHC 829]
M.V. Thimmaiah v. Union Public Service Commission [(2008) 2 SCC 119]
Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. v. Shibban Lal Saxena [(1975) 2 SCC 818]
Mohandas Embranthiri v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2001 (1) KLT 203]
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [(1978) 1 SCC 405]
National Highways Authority of India v. Madhukar Kumar [(2022) 14 SCC 661]
R.S. Dass v. Union of India [AIR 1987 SC 593]
Rajesh J. Potty v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2018 (5) KHC 220]
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 candidat....
The ‘Terms of Settlement’ arrived at between parties were placed on record along with report of Mediator. The said ‘Terms of Settlement’ fundamentally related to composition of selection committee fo....
Selection of religious leaders must adhere to established guidelines ensuring fairness and transparency, mandating oversight by appointed observers to maintain the process's integrity.
The court emphasized that active politicians are disqualified from being appointed as non-hereditary trustees, mandating adherence to established eligibility criteria and transparent selection proces....
Prescriptions stipulated in notification for selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple are not to discriminate among persons; but solely to ensure that ....
The appointment of non-hereditary trustees must adhere to established eligibility criteria, ensuring that active politicians are disqualified, and the process must be fair and transparent.
Court mandates transparency and oversight in appointing temple assistants, highlighting risks of unverified selections.
Judicial review of selection processes is limited; courts cannot reassess candidates' merits unless there is proven bias or violation of statutory rules.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.