Dismissed

Jayan K.K. Alias Jayan Krishnan Empranthiri v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC17 Aug 2023WP(C)/27309/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking selection as a Melshanti. The court held that the petitioner suppressed material facts by presenting only portions of an educational certificate instead of the required attested pass certificate. Citing precedents on duty of candor, the court dismissed the petition without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought due to suppression of material facts.

Jayan K.K. Alias Jayan Krishnan Empranthiri Vs… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

&

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶7

W.P.(C)NO.27309OF 2023

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

JAYAN K.K. ALIAS JAYAN KRISHNAN EMPRANTHIRI,
AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O. KRISHNAN EMPRANTHIRI, MANALI HOUSING SOCIETY 101, THILAK
NAGAR ROAD-1, M.G. ROAD, 163 GOREGON (W), MUMBAI SABARBAN,
MUMBAI, PIN - 400104

¶10

BY ADVS.
BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
ARCHANA K.S.
MOHAMMED SHAFI.K
NOEL EALIAS

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY., PIN - 695003

¶13

2 COMMISSIONER,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695003

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI G.BIJU - STANDING COUNSEL- TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.08.2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

W.P.(C)No.27309 of 2023

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶21

The petitioner, who submitted Exts.P4 and P5 applications pursuant to notification No.R.O.C.09/2023/S issued by the 2^nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board for selection as Melshanti in Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms, for the year 1199 ME, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 order dated 22.07.2023 issued by the 2^nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, whereby Exts.P4 and P5 applications stand rejected for the reason that those applications were not accompanied by an attested copy of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate to show that the petitioner passed the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination (Standard X). The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to include his name in the selection process for Melshanti in Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms in pursuance of Ext.P3 notification dated 03.06.2023 issued by the 2^nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner and a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner to consider and dispose of Ext.P7 representation dated 11.08.2023

¶22

¶23

W.P.(C)No.27309 of 2023

¶24

made by the petitioner.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel, who represented the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, for the respondents.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, though Exts.P4 and P5 applications were accompanied by an attested copy of Ext.P1 Secondary School Leaving Certificate to show that the petitioner passed Standard X, the 2^nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner rejected those applications vide Ext.P6 order dated 22.07.2023. The said order is per se arbitrary, illegal and vitiated by malafides.

¶27

Per contra, the learned counsel, who represented the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, would submit that one of the documents enclosed along with Exts.P4 and P5 applications made by the petitioner is pages 1 and 2 of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner. Page No.2 is ‘School Record for Standard VIII’. Since Exts.P4 and P5 applications were not accompanied by an attested copy of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate to show that the petitioner passed Standard X, the 2^nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner rightly rejected those applications, vide Ext.P6 order dated 22.07.2023. The learned

¶28

¶29

W.P.(C)No.27309 of 2023

¶30

counsel has made available for the perusal of this Court photocopy of Exts.P4 and P5 applications dated 18.06.2023.

¶31

The selection as Melshanti of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms, for the year 1198 M.E., is based on notification No.R.O.C.09/2023/S a notification issued by the 2^nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, enclosing therewith detailed instructions for the applicants. Based on the said notification, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application dated 18.06.2023 for the post of Melshanti in Sabarimala Devaswom and Ext.P5 application dated 18.06.2023 for the post of Melshanti in Malikappuram Devaswom. The document marked as Ext.P1 is pages 1 and 6 of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner. The minimum educational qualification prescribed in the said notification is a pass in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination or any other equivalent examination. A copy of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate, attested by a Gazetted officer, to show that the petitioner passed the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination (Standard X) has to accompany the application for the post of Melshanti in Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom.

¶32

The averments in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the writ

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C)No.27309 of 2023

¶35

petition read thus;

¶36

“11. Since the petitioner had duly furnished Ext.P1 along with Exts.P4 and P5 applications, he could not find any just and sustainable reason behind the issuance of Ext.P6, rejecting the applications submitted by him in pursuance to Ext.P3 notification to the post of Melsanti at Sabarimala and Malikappuram.

¶37

Petitioner humbly submits that Ext.P6 is ill-motivated, arbitrary, malafide and illegal. Either without proper scrutiny of documents produced by the petitioner along with Exts.P4 and P5 or in the alternative, after taking away the copy of Ext.P1 submitted along with Exts.P4 and P5, that Ext.P6 was issued, rejecting the applications submitted by the petitioner to the post of Melsanti at Sabarimala and Malikappuram.”

¶38

(underline supplied)

¶39

In Ext.P7 representation dated 11.08.2023 submitted

¶40

before the 2^nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, the petitioner

¶41

has stated that there occurred some error in the office of the 2^nd respondent while processing his applications submitted by the petitioner in pursuance to Ext.P3 notification dated 03.06.2023. Either the SSL Certificate produced by the petitioner along with the applications dated 18.06.2023 were concealed or misplaced at the office of the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner requested the

¶42

2^nd respondent to hold a necessary enquiry, either directly by the

¶43

2^nd respondent or through the Police, in the matter of concealing or

¶44

¶45

W.P.(C)No.27309 of 2023

¶46

misplacing his SSL Certificate produced along with the said applications to show that he had passed SSLC (Standard X).

¶47

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel who represented the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board has made available for the perusal of this Court photocopy of Exts.P4 and P5 applications dated 18.06.2023 [14029 – 22.06.2023 and 14015 – 22.06.2023] made by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P3 notification dated 03.06.2023. One of the documents enclosed along with those applications is pages 1 and 2 of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner. Page No.2 is ‘School Record for Standard VIII’, which bears the signature of the Headmaster and Class Teacher of Government Model High School for Boys, Kunnamkulam. On the other hand, the document produced by the petitioner along with the writ petition and marked as Ext.P1 is pages 1 and 6 of his Secondary School Leaving Certificate. Page No.6 is ‘Pass Certificate of Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination’, issued by the Secretary, Board of Public Examinations, Kerala.

¶48

As stated by Scrutton, L.J, in R. v . Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 K.B. 486] , an applicant who does not come with candid facts and ‘clean breast’ cannot hold a writ of

¶49

¶50

W.P.(C)No.27309 of 2023

¶51

the court with ‘soiled hands’. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction.

¶52

In Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India [(2007) 8 SCC 449] the Apex Court reiterated that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. Therefore, in exercising extraordinary power, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppress relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss

¶53

the action without adjudicating the matter. This rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in the disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.

¶54

In Prestige Lights Limited [(2007) 8 SCC 449] the

¶55

Apex Court held further that, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary

¶56

¶57

W.P.(C)No.27309 of 2023

¶58

jurisdiction. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into the merits of the matter.

¶59

When Exts.P4 and P5 applications made by the petitioner

¶60

were not accompanied by an attested copy of pages 1 and 6 of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate to show that the petitioner passed Standard X, the 2^nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner cannot be found fault with in rejecting those applications, vide Ext.P6 order dated 22.07.2023. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed into service the plea of the petitioner in Ext.P7 representation that the Secondary School Leaving Certificate produced along with Exts.P4 and P5 applications dated 18.06.2023 to show that the petitioner passed Standard X were concealed or misplaced at the office of the 2^nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner.

¶61

As stated by Scrutton, L.J, in R. v . Kensington Income

¶62

Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 K.B. 486] an applicant who does

¶63

¶64

W.P.(C)No.27309 of 2023

¶65

not come with candid facts and ‘clean breast’ cannot hold a writ of the court with ‘soiled hands’. As held by the Apex Court in Prestige Lights Limited [(2007) 8 SCC 449] , if there is suppression of material facts on the part of the writ petitioner or twisted facts have been placed before the court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the writ petition and dismiss the same. In the instant case, the conduct of the petitioner in suppressing material facts from the notice of this Court has to be deprecated in the strongest words and we do so.

¶66

In the above circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶67

Registry to incorporate photocopy of Exts.P4 and P5 applications dated 18.06.2023 [14029 – 22.06.2023 and 14015 – 22.06.2023] made by the petitioner, made available for the perusal of this Court, in the Judges papers of this writ petition.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶72

MIN

¶73

¶74

W.P.(C)No.27309 of 2023

¶75

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27309/2023

¶76

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶77

Exhibit P1 TUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SSL
CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER BEARING
REG.NO.135746 OF 1981 ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY, BOARD OF PUBLIC EXAMINATIONS,
KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶78

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO BEARING R.O.C.NO.
8063/20/SABA DATED 22.9.2020 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3.6.2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶79

Exhibit P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE CLEARANCE
CERTIFICATE DATED 20.6.2023 ISSUED BY THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SPECIAL
BRANCH, MUMBAI CITY.

¶80

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
18.6.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE POST OF MELSANTHI AT SABARIMALA.

¶81

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
18.6.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE POST OF MELSANTHI AT MALIKAPPURAM.

¶82

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING
NO.ROC.09/23/S DATED 22.7.2023 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT, REJECTING EXTS.P4 AND P5
APPLICATIONS.WITH ITS TYPED COPY.

¶83

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
11.8.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Jayan K.K. Alias Jayan Krishnan Empranthiri v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayan K.K. Alias Jayan Krishnan Empranthiri v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Secretary, Vs the Devaswom Commissioner

Sathjith Vs State of Kerala

Renjitha Abraham Vs the Manager

Livingstone. a, Vs the State Police Chief

Action Council Vs the State Police Chief

Cochin Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director