Kerala High Court
Suo Motu vs State Of Kerala on 23 October, 2024
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
1
SSCR No.69 of 2024
2024:KER:78751
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2024/1ST KARTHIKA, 1946
SSCR NO. 69 OF 2024
(IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - SABARIMALA
SPECIAL COMMISSIONER REPORT - SM.NO.69/2024 - REPORT AS DIRECTED
IN THE ORDER DATED 16/10/2024 IN SSCR NO.67/2024 BY THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA REGARDING THE SELECTION OF MELSANTHIES TO
THE SABARIMALA SREE DHARMA SASTHA TEMPLE AND MALIKAPPURAM TEMPLE
FOR THE YEAR 1200 M.E BY DRAW OF LOTS HELD AT SABARIMALA ON
17/10/2024 - SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED - REG.)
PETITIONER:
SUO MOTU
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001
2 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR
POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695003
3 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BUILDINGS,
NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695005
4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SABARIMALA, SABARIMALA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA 689662
2
SSCR No.69 of 2024
2024:KER:78751
SRI. S. RAJMOHAN - SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI. G. BIJU - SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL, TDB;
SMT. SAYUJYA RADHAKRISHNAN- AMICUS CURIAE
THIS SABARIMALA SPECIAL COMMISSIONER REPORT HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 23.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
3
SSCR No.69 of 2024
2024:KER:78751
ORDER
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala has filed this report
regarding the draw of lots held on 17.10.2024 at Sabarimala
Sannidhanam, in connection with the selection of Melsanthies of
Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms. The draw of lots was
held pursuant to the order of this Court dated 16.10.2024 in SSCR
No.67 of 2024.
2. In the report of the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala it
is stated that, in the draw of lots held on 17.10.2024 the following
persons are selected as Melsanthies of Sabarimala and
Malikappuram Devaswoms, for the year 1200ME (2024-25);
1. Shri.S.Arunkumar Namboodiri (Sl.No.12),
Narayaneeyam, Shakthikulangara, Kollam - 691003 is
selected as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma
Sastha Temple, under Sabarimala Devaswom.
2. Shri.Vasudevan Namboodiri. T., (Sl.No.14),
Thirumangalathu Illam, 238A, Kozhikode - 673019 is
selected as Melsanthi of Malikappuram Temple, under
Malikappuram Devaswom.
3. The learned Observer Mr. Justice T.R. Ramachandran
Nair, a former Judge of this Court, has also submitted a report
dated 21.10.2024 regarding the draw of lots held on 17.10.2024 at
Sabarimala Sannidhanam.
2024:KER:78751
4. On 21.10.2024, when this report came up for
consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore
Devaswom Board and also the learned Senior Government Pleader
sought time to address arguments on the observations contained in
the order of this Court dated 16.10.2024 in SSCR No.67 of 2024
and W.P.(C)No.35934 of 2024 - Suo motu v. State of Kerala and
others [2024:KER:76426] - regarding the experience certificate
produced by the candidates and the disposal of the appeals by the
Board, which were filed by the candidates against the rejection
memo issued based on the adverse remarks made by the Chief
Vigilance and Security Officer.
5. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1st
respondent State, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore
Devaswom Board for respondents 2 to 4 and the learned Amicus
Curiae for the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala.
6. In the order dated 16.10.2024 in SSCR No.67 of 2024
and W.P.(C)No.35934 of 2024, this Court noticed that despite the
specific direction contained in the order dated 04.07.2022 in DBA
No.5 of 2022 - Travancore Devaswom Board v. Deputy
Examiner for Local Fund Audit and another
[2022:KER:33564], the Board has not chosen to make it clear in
2024:KER:78751
the notification issued for the year 1200ME and also in the format
of experience certificate that no candidate shall be permitted to
substitute the experience certificate enclosed along with the
application. This has resulted in the Board granting an opportunity
to the candidates, who failed to submit experience certificate in the
prescribed format along with the application, to substitute the same
during the course of consideration of appeal against the report of
the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, invoking the provisions
under clause (13) of the guidelines regarding the process of
selection, which forms part of the notification inviting applications
for selection as Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram
Devaswoms, for the year 1200ME. In the order dated 16.10.2024,
this Court deprecated in the strongest words, the conduct of the
Board in issuing such a notification without making specific
provisions in terms of the directions contained in the order of this
Court dated 04.07.2022 in DBA No.5 of 2022.
7. In the order dated 16.10.2024 in SSCR No.67 of 2024
and W.P.(C)No.35934 of 2024, this Court held that the Board, while
exercising the appellate powers under clause (13) of the guidelines,
which forms part of the notification, in an appeal filed by a
candidate against an adverse recommendation, has to state
2024:KER:78751
reasons for overruling the said adverse recommendations made in
the report of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer. Similarly,
while confirming such adverse recommendations, the Board has to
state brief reasons, so as to enable the candidate concerned to
challenge that decision of the Board in appropriate proceedings.
Paragraph 38 of the order reads thus;
"38. As already noticed hereinbefore, in the instant case,
clause (13) of the guidelines, which forms part of the
notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board for
selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram
Devaswoms, provides for an appeal to the Board against
the rejection memo issued to a candidate based on an
adverse recommendation made in the report of the Chief
Vigilance and Security Officer. The Board, while exercising
the appellate powers under clause (13), in an appeal filed
by a candidate against such an adverse recommendation,
has to state reasons for overruling the said adverse
recommendations made in the report of the Chief Vigilance
and Security Officer. Similarly, while confirming such
adverse recommendations, the Board has to state brief
reasons, so as to enable the candidate concerned to
challenge that decision of the Board in appropriate
proceedings. It is pertinent to note that, the
recommendation of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer
in the individual reports is on the qualification and
eligibility of the respective candidates to participate in the
process of selection and not on the suitability of the
2024:KER:78751
candidate for being selected as Melsanthies of Sabarimala
and Malikappuram Devaswoms. Therefore, we find
absolutely no merits in the contention advanced by the
learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board
relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in R.S. Dass
[AIR 1987 SC 593], which can only be repelled as
untenable, and we do so."
8. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom
Board would submit that the direction contained in paragraph 38 of
the order dated 16.10.2024 in SSCR No.67 of 2024 and
W.P.(C)No.35934 of 2024 shall be complied with by the Board
during the selection process for Melsanthies of Sabarimala and
Malikappuram Devaswoms. Regarding the opportunity given to the
candidates to substitute the experience certificate enclosed along
with the application, the learned Standing Counsel would submit
that, there was omission on the part of the Board in incorporating a
specific condition in the notification and also in the format of
experience certificate that no candidate shall be permitted to
substitute the experience certification enclosed along with the
application. That omission occurred, since the order of this Court in
DBA No.5 of 2022 was not placed before the Board, along with the
files, at the time of finalisation of the notification for the selection
process. The Board has already taken necessary steps to ensure
2024:KER:78751
that such omissions are not repeated hereafter. The learned
Standing Counsel would submit that the Board shall ensure strict
compliance of the directions contained in the order of this Court
dated 04.07.2022 in DBA No.5 of 2022 [2022:KER:33564], while
publishing the notification and guidelines for selection of
Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms.
9. The aforesaid submissions made by the learned
Standing Counsel, on behalf of the 2nd respondent Travancore
Devaswom Board, are recorded.
10. The learned Standing Counsel would submit that the
Board has already initiated steps for prescribing a separate format
of experience certificate in respect of applicants for selection as
Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms, who are
working in temples other than those under the management of
Travancore Devaswom Board and Cochin Devaswom Board. On
finalisation of the format of experience certificate, the Board shall
file a DBA before this Court seeking approval for the same.
10. Having perused the report of the learned Observer and
that of the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala and considering the
submissions made by the learned Senior Government Pleader for
the 1st respondent State, the learned Standing Counsel for
2024:KER:78751
Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 2 to 4 and also the
learned Amicus Curiae for the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala,
we deem it appropriate to record the report dated 17.10.2024 of
the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala and also the report dated
21.10.2024 of the learned Observer, on the selection of
Melshanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, under
Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Temple, under
Malikappuram Devaswom, for the year 1200ME (2024-25).
11. Registrar (Judicial) to keep the report of the learned
Observer in a sealed cover.
This SSCR is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
SMF
