LAWS(KER)-1993-3-27

SREEKUMAR Vs. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

Decided On March 09, 1993
SREEKUMAR Appellant
V/S
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil miscellaneous petitions and the original petitions are connected cases. The C. M. Ps. are filed by a devotee of the temples in Travancore and by the Kshetra Samrakshana Samithi. The O. P. s are filed by the candidates who appeared in the written examination conducted by the Travancore Devaswom Board for the post of Lower Division Clerks/sub Group Officers. Petitioners challenged the written examination and the interview conductedby the Board. The averments in ail these petitions are more or less the same.

(2.) THE facts: First respondent, the Travancore Devaswom Board (for short the Board) by proceedings dated September 8, 1991 decided to select Clerks-cum-Sub-Group Officers in the Board. Applications were invited by advertisement in Mathrubhoomi daily on September 23, 1991. 20152 applications were received out of which 19615 were found to be valid. The written examination was conducted on July 5, 1992 and a short list was prepared for interview. The; Board took a decision on August 11, 1992 to conduct an interview of persons who have secured 40 marks and above in the written examination. The interview was proposed to be conducted on August 20, 1992. In the meantime C. M. P. 2654/92 was filed under Section 105 of the Hindu Religions Institutions Act seeking a declaration that the proceedings for appointment are illegal and for a direction commanding the Board not to conduct the interview. By order dt. August 19, 1992 in CMP. 2654/92 this Court permitted the interview to go on, but directed that no appointment shall be made until further orders. This order was modified on August 25, 1992 by which it was directed that the results of the interview or the rank list shall not be published and that the results shall be kept in a sealed cover after the interviews are over to be dealt with in accordance with the final orders of this Court. The interview of the candidates who secured 40 marks and above in the written examination were completed and the result was produced before this court in a sealed cover.

(3.) WITHIN a few days from the filing of C. M. P. 2654/1992, the other C. M. P. and the three original petitions were filed on the same averments and seeking more or less identical reliefs. In particular, the selection process is questioned as violative of the recruitment rules. The direction to write the name of the candidate and to subscribe his signature in the answer paper is stated to be a malpractice adopted by the Board. The decision to call for interview only those candidates who have secured above 40 marks in the written examination and the decision fixing minimum of 20 marks in the interview to make a candidate suitable for selection are also questioned. According to petitioners the selection process runs counter to the recommendation of the High Power Commission appointed by this Court and is in violation of the order passed on July 15, 1991 while considering the budget estimate for the year 1991-92. The main reliefs asked for are: