Dismissed

Prakash.K.M. v. Malabar Devaswom Board, Represented by Its Secretary

Kerala HC29 Nov 2023WP(C)/35720/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the selection of a respondent via drawing lots for the post of Santhi in a temple, alleging lack of transparency. The Court found the process followed merit rankings and dismissed the petition as it did not meet the threshold for judicial interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking to quash the selection process is dismissed.

Prakash.K.M. Vs Malabar Devaswom Board… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 35720 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 PRAKASH.K.M. AGED 49 YEARS S/O BALAKRISHNAN, NO.4, SREE VALSAM, PALLIPPURAM (P.O), PALAKKAD, PIN - 678006

¶8

2 RAJESH.M. AGED 39 YEARS S/O SIVADAS, MATHILAKATHU HOUSE, KUNNATHUR MEDU (P.O), MANAPPULLYKKAVU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013

¶9

BY ADVS. G.BIJU S.JAYAPRAKASH (MADAVOOR) V.A.VINOD AMBADI MURALI INDU RAMESH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPPALAM (P.O.), KOZHIKODE,, PIN - 673006 2 THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPPALAM (P.O.), KOZHIKODE,, PIN - 673006

¶12

3 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SREE MANAPPULLY BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM, EAST YAKKARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,, PIN - 678013 4 INTERVIEW BOARD FOR APPOINTMENT OF SANTHI IN BHAIRAVA TEMPLE SREE MANAPPULLY BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM, EAST YAKKARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013

¶13

-2-

¶14

W.P.(C) NO.35720 OF 2023

¶15

5 VINOD. P. NAIR LAKSHMI VIHAR, KIZHAKKETHARA, SEKHARIPURAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678003

¶16

BY ADVS. K.MOHANAKANNAN MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN D.S.THUSHARA(K/76/2010)

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI. LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC FOR MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, SRI. MOHANAKANNAN FOR SREE MANAPPULLY BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

-3-

¶21

W.P.(C) NO.35720 OF 2023

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Petitioners herein are applicants to the post of Santhi in Kala Bhairava temple in Sree Manappully Sree Bhagavathy Devaswom. They contend that a notification was issued on 06.04.2022 calling for application for appointment of Santhi in the aforesaid temple. Petitioners 1 and 2 had submitted Exts.P2 and P3 applications for the said post. According to them, they were called for an interview and they attended the same on 19.10.2023. The Interview Board consisted of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, Palakkad, Hereditary Trustee of the temple, Executive Officer of the temple and the Tantri of the temple. It is stated that the 3^rd respondent selected the 5th respondent by drawing lots and without even publishing a shortlist. They assert that the 5th respondent is a person against whom numerous complaints are pending and the same is evident from Exts.P5, P6 and P7. According to the petitioners, the 5^th respondent is the personal driver of a member of the Board and the entire selection process carried out is merely an eye wash. The petitioners allege that the drawing of lots and the non-publishing of the marks obtained by the candidates is illegal. It is on these allegations that the petitioners have approached this Court

¶24

-4-

¶25

W.P.(C) NO.35720 OF 2023

¶26

seeking to quash the entire selection process conducted pursuant to Ext.P1 notification for appointment of Santhi and for incidental reliefs.

¶27

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent wherein, after narrating the sequence of events, it is stated that the interview Board was constituted with four members including the Hereditary Trustee, Tantri, Executive Officer and Assistant Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board. The interview Board was convened on 30.09.2023 and a total of 50 marks were to be granted for the interview. It was decided that 10 marks each would be granted by all the members except the Tantri and 20 marks would be given by the Tantri for the interview. Those candidates who secured more than 30 marks were considered for selection. The 1st petitioner secured 33 marks, the second petitioner secured 33 marks and the 5th respondent received 38 marks for the interview. Thereafter, the petitioners, the 5th respondent, and one Santhosh, who secured more than 30 marks, were included in the lots. The lot was taken in front of the Mel Shanthi in a transparent manner, and the name of the 5th respondent, who had scored 38 marks, was incidentally picked. The entire exercise was conducted in public view. The respondents have produced Exhibit R3(e) Tabulation sheet to substantiate the marks obtained by the persons who were included in the shortlist. It is further stated that the allegations against the 5th respondent are

¶28

-5-

¶29

W.P.(C) NO.35720 OF 2023

¶30

unsubstantiated and the said aspect was also considered by the respondents.

¶31

A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners countering

¶32

the contentions raised in the counter.

¶33

I have considered the submissions advanced and gone through the records. The specific contention of the petitioners is that there are several discrepancies that undermine the integrity of the entire selection process. The first contention is that though no time period was fixed for the appointment of Santhi, later it was limited to one year. The second contention is that in the notification, the method of drawing lots was not mentioned. The third allegation is that the names of shortlisted persons were not published.

¶34

I find that the petitioners had also participated in the selection process and though they were shortlisted, their names were rejected at the final stage. The selected candidate has no grievance with regard to the limiting of the period of appointment to one year. In so far as drawing of lots is concerned, I find that an interview Board was constituted with four members, including the Hereditary Trustee, Tantri, Executive Officer and Assistant Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board and they had conducted an interview and awarded marks, The 5tn

¶35

-6-

¶36

W.P.(C) NO.35720 OF 2023

¶37

respondent had secured the highest marks. A cut-off marks was fixed and the 5th respondent was selected by drawing lots. The petitioners have not been able to convince this Court that the procedure adopted by the respondents is improper in any way. Even otherwise, the 5th respondent is the person who has secured the highest marks during the interview. There is no assertion in the writ petition that the members of the interview board had favored the 5th respondent.

¶38

The Apex Court has held in a host of decisions that interference under Article 226 is permissible only if the decision-making process is mala fide or is intended to favor someone. The Courts exercising powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are concerned with the legality of the procedure followed and not with the validity of the order. In other words, judicial review is concerned not with the decision but with the decision-making process. The decision of the administrative authority is liable to be interfered with if the decision is so arbitrary or irrational that the decision is one that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with the law could have reached. In other words, the decision-making process or the decision should be perverse and not merely faulty, incorrect, or erroneous. In Tata Cellular v. Union Of India¹ it has been held that if a decision is challenged (the decision having been arrived at through a valid process), 1 (1994) 6 SCC 651

¶39

-7-

¶40

W.P.(C) NO.35720 OF 2023

¶41

the constitutional courts can interfere if the decision is perverse. This Court is expected to exercise restraint in interfering with the administrative decision and should not substitute its view for that of the administrative authority. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decision-making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional court to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality, or perversity must be met before the constitutional court interferes with the decision-making process or the decision. No such extreme case is made out in the instant case.

¶42

In view of the discussion above, I do not think that this case calls for any interference and is dismissed.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V. JUDGE

¶45

rsr

¶46

-8-

¶47

W.P.(C) NO.35720 OF 2023

¶48

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35720/2023

¶49

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶50

Exhibit	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE MANAPPULLY BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, PALAKKAD DATED 06.04.2022 PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY
Exhibit	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 6.4.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE SREE MANAPPULLY BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM
Exhibit	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 6.4.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER BEFORE SREE MANAPPULLY BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM
Exhibit	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION LETTER DATED 03.10.2023 RECEIVED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER FROM THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE MANAPPULLY BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, EAST YAKKARA, PALAKKAD
Exhibit	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.01.2022 SUBMITTED BY BALASUBROMONIAN TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit	P6	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY ONE MR.SURESH TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 20.04.2022
Exhibit	P7	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY SRI.SUKUMAR TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
RESPONDE	NT EXHI	BITS
EXHIBIT	R3(a)	True copy of the order issued by the Commissioner Malabar devaswom board No.H6/701/2023/MDB/K.Dis dated 25-4- 2023,

¶51

-9-

¶52

W.P.(C) NO.35720 OF 2023

¶53

EXHIBIT	R3(b) True copy of the communication sent by the 3rd Respondent to the Commissioner Malabar Devaswom Board dated 12-6-2023
EXHIBIT	R3(c) True copy of the Order No. H6- 4455/2023/MDB dated 4-9-2023 issued by the Commissioner
EXHIBIT	R3(d) True copy of the minutes of the interview board dated 30-9-2023
EXHIBIT	R3(e) True copy of the tabulation sheets
EXHIBIT	R3(f) True copy of the appointment order issued by the 3rd Respondent to the 5th Respondent dated 27-10-2023
Exhibit	R5(a). True copy of the notice of interview dated 03-10-2023 issued by the 4th Respondents to the 5th Respondent.
Exhibit	R5(b). True copy of the Experience Certificate dated 15-08-2022 issued by the former 'Shanthi' Sri.Ayyappan to the 5th Respondent.

Prakash.K.M. v. Malabar Devaswom Board, Represented by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash.K.M. v. Malabar Devaswom Board, Represented by Its Secretary

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

Shareef T.E Vs Shanavas.S I.A.S

K.Venugopalan, Vs State of Kerala

M.J. Paul Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority (Gcda)

M.K.Ravi Vs the Custodian Vested Forest

Sushama M.K Vs Assistant Engineer

C.B Jothi Basu Vs State of Kerala