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. 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 draw of lots, this Court noticed that most of the candidates, who were granted opportunity to substitute fresh experience certificate, could not secure the cut-off mark of 54 (60% of the total marks of 90), for inclusion in the select list for interview. 2.6. From the select list of candidates for the draw of lots, this Court noticed that most of the candidates, who were granted opportunity to substitute fresh experience certificate, could not secure the cut-off mark of 54 (60% of the total marks of 90), for inclusion in the select list for interview. 2.6. From the files, this Court noticed that the applications made by one Pramod M., who is Sl.No.20 in the select list of the candidates for the interview for Sabarimala Devaswom, who is also in the select list of Malikappuram Devaswom as Sl.No.12, was not recommended by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, pointing out the provision contained in the notification, which provides experience in a temple, which opens twice daily and having three poojas and where public is having right to worship. Against the rejection memo issued by the Board, the said candidate submitted an appeal along with certain documents, based on which the Board consisting of the President and Members granted permission for that candidate to participate in the interview. In the order dated 10.10.2024, this Court noticed that the reason for taking such a stand is not discernible from the files. Similarly, the application made by another candidate, Yogesh Nampoothiri T.K., who is Sl.No.21 in the select list of candidates for the interview for Sabarimala Devaswom was not recommended by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer due to absence of experience certificate for the period from 01.11.2020 to 14.11.2023. Based on the rejection memo issued by the Board, the said candidate submitted experience certificate for the said period, based on which the Board, consisting of the President and Members, granted permission for that candidate to participate in the interview. The reason for taking such a stand is not discernible from the files. In the order dated 10.10.2024, this Court noticed that such a course adopted by the Board is in violation of the direction contained in the order of this Court dated 04.07.2022 in DBA No.5 of 2022. In addition to that, from the mark sheets, this Court noticed that there is wide difference in the marks awarded by the outside Tantri, when compared to that awarded by the Senior Tantri and Junior Tantri of Thazhamon Illam/Madom. The marks awarded by the outside Tantri in respect of a few candidates are comparable to that granted by one among the Tantries of Thazhamon Illam/Madom. 2.7. The marks awarded by the outside Tantri in respect of a few candidates are comparable to that granted by one among the Tantries of Thazhamon Illam/Madom. 2.7. By the order dated 10.10.2024, this Court suo motu impleaded the aforesaid Pramod M. and Yogesh Nampoothiri T.K. as additional respondents 5 and 6 in the SSCR and notice was ordered to those respondents through e-mail, in the e-mail ID furnished by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board. 2.8. By the order dated 10.10.2024, this Court granted permission to the Devaswom Commissioner to publish the select lists of the candidates for the draw of lots scheduled to be held on 17.10.2024 for selection as Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms for the year 1200ME (2024-25), on condition that the inclusion of the names of additional respondents 5 and 6 in the SSCR, namely, Pramod M. and Yogesh Nampoothiri T.K., in those select lists will be subject to further orders to be passed in this SSCR. It was made clear that their names will be included in the draw of lots scheduled to be held on 17.10.2024 only after obtaining the orders of this Court. The Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to proceed with the draw of lots, which is scheduled to be held on 17.10.2024, in terms of the directions contained in the earlier orders of this Court, in the presence of the learned Observer and also the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala. Registrar (Judicial) was directed to handover the sealed cover containing the original select lists of the candidates for the draw of lots to the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, who was directed the handover the same to the Devaswom Commissioner, who was directed to publish the select lists in the official website of the Travancore Devaswom Board, within two days from the date of that order. 2.9. On 14.10.2024, when this SSCR came up for consideration, additional respondents 5 and 6 entered appearance through counsel. Registry was directed to upload the entire case records in the SSCR so as to enable the respective counsel to get it through their dashboard. A scanned copy of the complaint dated 30.09.2024 and also other two complaints received regarding the selection process of Melsanthies, referred to in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the order dated 10.10.2024, were directed to be incorporated as part of the case records in the SSCR. 2.10. A scanned copy of the complaint dated 30.09.2024 and also other two complaints received regarding the selection process of Melsanthies, referred to in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the order dated 10.10.2024, were directed to be incorporated as part of the case records in the SSCR. 2.10. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 15.10.2024, producing therewith Exts.R5(a) to R5(e) documents. In the counter affidavit it is stated that on receipt of Ext.R5(c) rejection memo, for the reason that three poojas are not conducted daily in Chirangara Sreerama Swami Temple, as prescribed in the notification, the 5th respondent obtained Ext.R5(d) letter dated 09.09.2024 from the Manager of Chirangara Thirumoolangad Devaswom and produced the same before the Board during the personal hearing held on 11.09.2024. Along with the counter affidavit, the 5th respondent has placed on record Ext.R5(a) experience certificate dated 10.06.2024 issued by the Managing Trustee of Sreekrishnapuram Sreekrishna Temple for the period from 15.01.2007 till 31.03.2021 and Ext.R5(b) experience certificate dated 09.06.2024 issued by the Manager of Chirangara Sreerama Swami Temple. Thereafter the 5th respondent was issued with Ext.R5(e) memo dated 12.09.2024 to attend the interview scheduled on 26.09.2024 for selection as Melsanthi of Malikappuram Devaswom and Ext.R5(e) memo dated 12.09.2024 to attend the interview scheduled on 25.09.2024 for selection of Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom. According to the 5th respondent, after the interview, his name was included in the select list for appointment as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom, following the procedure prescribed in clause (13) of the notification. By submitting Ext.R5(d) letter, the 5th respondent offered necessary explanation. After considering all the aspects, on being satisfied with the explanation offered by the 5th respondent, the Board decided to include his name in the list of the candidates called for interview. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the 5th respondent applied for the post of Melsanthi for six times from the year 2019 onwards and on four occasions, he was called for interview. 2.11. The additional 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 14.10.2024, producing therewith Annexures R6(a) to R6(m) documents. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the name of the 6th respondent was not recommended by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer for interview in the selection of Melsanthi in Sabarimala Devaswom due to absence of experience certificate for the period from 01.11.2020 to 14.11.2023. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the name of the 6th respondent was not recommended by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer for interview in the selection of Melsanthi in Sabarimala Devaswom due to absence of experience certificate for the period from 01.11.2020 to 14.11.2023. The 6th respondent was issued with a rejection memo and he was required to appear for a personal hearing scheduled on 11.09.2024, along with the documents. The 6th respondent has placed on record Annexure R6(a) certificate dated 07.10.2006 issued by the Secretary of Yakshi Amma Althara Temple for the period from 01.03.2003 to 07.10.2006. The document marked as Annexure R6(b) is a copy of the select list of candidates called for interview for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1199ME, in which the 6th respondent is Sl.No.13. The document marked as Annexure R6(c) is an experience certificate dated 26.07.2019 issued by the Secretary of Konchiravila Sree Bhagavathi Temple Trust for the period from 01.11.2008 to 30.05.2011. Ext.R6(d) certificate dated 26.07.2019 issued by the President of Sree Udiyannoor Devi Kshethra Yogam is for the period from 01.06.2011 to 27.01.2013. Annexure R6(e) experience certificate dated 06.10.2018 issued by the Secretary of Sree Panimoola Devi Kshethram Trust is for the period from 07.04.2013 to 16.09.2018. Annexure R6(f) certificate dated 23.06.2021 issued by the President of Karyavattam Sree Dharma Sastha Kshethra Bharana Samithi is for the period from 01.11.2018 to 31.10.2020. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that thereafter, the 6th respondent was seriously affected by Covid-19 and after recovery, he served at Edakkulam Sree Bhagavathi Temple Trust for the period from 01.04.2021 to 30.09.2023. Due to some personal reasons, he could not continue in that temple. Hence, he submitted a resignation letter dated 21.08.2023 to the Secretary of that temple, informing that he proposed to resign from the post of Melsanthi with effect from 20.10.2023. On completion of the period of two months, he sought for an experience certificate from 01.04.2021 to 30.09.2023 from the Secretary of that temple by submitting Annexure R6(g) application dated 28.09.2023. However, the Secretary of the temple refused to issue an experience certificate. After the resignation, the 6th respondent joined Konchiravila Sree Bhagavathi Temple Trust, where he is still continuing as Melsanthi. However, the Secretary of the temple refused to issue an experience certificate. After the resignation, the 6th respondent joined Konchiravila Sree Bhagavathi Temple Trust, where he is still continuing as Melsanthi. Ext.R6(h) is a copy of the experience certificate dated 20.06.2024 issued by the Secretary of Konchiravila Sree Bhagavathi Temple Trust, for the period from October, 2023. According to the 6th respondent though he had worked as Melsanthi at Edakkulam Sree Bhagavathi Temple Trust from 01.04.2021 to 30.09.2023, he was not issued with an experience certificate. In such circumstances, he submitted an application pursuant to the notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom, without an experience certificate for the period from 01.04.2021 to 30.09.2023. On receipt of the rejection memo issued by the Secretary of the Board, the 6th respondent appeared for personal hearing on 11.09.2024. Annexure R6(j) is a certificate dated 18.06.2023 issued by the Tantri of Edakkulam Sree Bhagavathi Temple Trust, wherein it is stated that the 6th respondent is working as Melsanthi of the temple from 01.04.2021 and Annexure R6(k) is another certificate dated 17.06.2021 of the Secretary of Edakkulam Sree Bhagavathi Temple Trust certifying that the 6th respondent is working as Melsanthi of the temple from 01.04.2021. After the order of this Court dated 10.10.2024, the 6th respondent approached the Edakkulam Sree Bhagavathi Temple Trust and the Joint Secretary of that Trust issued Annexure R6(l) certificate dated 12.10.2024 wherein it is certified that he had worked as Melsanthi in that temple from 01.04.2021 to 30.09.2023. The Joint Secretary of the Trust has also issued Annexure R6(m) certificate dated nil in the prescribed format for the period covered by Annexure R6(l) certificate. According to the 6th respondent, the absence of experience certificate for the period from 01.11.2020 to 14.11.2023 may not be treated as a disqualification for being selected as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom. The 6th respondent would point out that in the order in DBP No.50 of 2009 this Court observed that if the absence is due to any valid reason, the same can be considered. Certain other candidates, who are at Sl.Nos.20 to 25 in the select list of Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom were also given opportunity to clarify certain defects noted in their applications. In the interview, the 6th respondent answered all the questions properly and correctly, without any mistakes. Certain other candidates, who are at Sl.Nos.20 to 25 in the select list of Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom were also given opportunity to clarify certain defects noted in their applications. In the interview, the 6th respondent answered all the questions properly and correctly, without any mistakes. To his memory, the outside Tantri had not asked any questions and all these facts can be revealed from the video recording of the interview. Therefore, his name has to be included in the draw of lots for selection as Melsanthi in Sabarimala Devaswom. 3. W.P.(C)No.35934 of 2024:- The petitioner in this writ petition is currently serving as Melsanthi of Pulikkot Ayyappankavu Temple, Kollengode, since the year 2000. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging his non-inclusion in the select list of the candidates for the draw of lots for the selection of Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1200ME. Pursuant to the notification issued by the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application dated 11.06.2024 for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom. Based on that application, he was issued with Ext.P2 memo dated 12.09.2024 regarding the interview scheduled to be held on 25.09.2024. The petitioner participated in the interview. He answered all the questions asked by the three Tantries about the ritual and performance of poojas. The members of the Board also asked certain questions. Though the performance of the petitioner was satisfactory, his name was not included in the select list of candidates for the draw of lots. According to the petitioner, the elimination of his candidature is patently illegal and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to him. The petitioner has also pointed out the proceedings pending before this Court in SSCR No.67 of 2024, based on the report filed by the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala and also the complaint dated 30.09.2024 referred to in the order dated 10.10.2024. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction to interfere with the illegal select list prepared by the Travancore Devaswom Board and to ensure that fairness and transparency are maintained in the process of selection of Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction to interfere with the illegal select list prepared by the Travancore Devaswom Board and to ensure that fairness and transparency are maintained in the process of selection of Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the entire process of selection as Melsanthi in Sabarimala Devaswom under the Travancore Devaswom Board is violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 to 4 to include the name of the petitioner also in the select list of the candidates for the draw of lots for selection of Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom. 3.1. On 14.10.2024, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions and the writ petition was ordered to be listed on 15.10.2024 along with SSCR No.67 of 2024. 4. On 15.10.2024, we heard detailed arguments of the respective counsel for additional respondents 5 and 6 in SSCR No.67 of 2024, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.35934 of 2024, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for the Board and its officials and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the State of Kerala. 5. During the course of arguments, the respective counsel for respondents 5 and 6 contended that the procedure followed by the Travancore Devaswom Board in considering the appeal filed by the candidates against the rejection memo issued to the respective candidates based on an adverse recommendation of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer is strictly in terms of the provisions contained in clause (13) of the notification. On receipt of the rejection memo, respondents 5 and 6 produced necessary documents before the Board and on being satisfied that the said respondents have the required eligibility and experience in terms of the notification, their names were included in the select lists for the draw of lots for selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms, which is scheduled to be held on 17.10.2024. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent would submit that, in order to clarify that the 5th respondent is having the required experience Ext.R5(d) letter dated 09.09.2024 issued by the Manager of Chirangara Thirumoolangad Devaswom was produced before the Board, in order to show that in the said temple there are daily three poojas, following Trikala Pooja rituals. Further, the 5th respondent applied for Selection as Melsanthi in Sabarimala Devaswom six times from the year 2019 onwards and on four occasions, he was called for the interview. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent would point out that the said respondent could not produce experience certificate for the period from 01.11.2020 to 14.11.2023, along with the application submitted pursuant to the notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board only for the reason that the experience certificate was intentionally withheld by the committee of Edakkulam Sree Bhagavathi Temple Trust. He was issued with Annexure R6(l) certificate dated 12.10.2024 and Annexure R6(m) certificate dated nil, only after the order of this Court dated 10.10.2024. The learned counsel would point out that the name of the 6th respondent was included as Sl.No.13 in Annexure R6(b) select list for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1199ME. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.35934 of 2024 would submit that since the selection process for the post of Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom is conducted by the Travancore Devaswom Board not in a fair and transparent manner, in total violation of the norms evolved by the Board, it warrants interference of this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the order dated 10.10.2024, this Court noticed disparity in the marks awarded to the candidates by the three Tantries and that certain candidates, who failed to submit experience certificates in the prescribed format, were granted opportunity to substitute the same. Since the petitioner performed satisfactorily in the interview for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom, his name should have been included in the select list of the candidates for the draw of lots. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board contended that the procedure adopted by the Board for considering the appeals filed by the candidates against the rejection memo issued based on the recommendation of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer is in terms of clause (13) of the notification. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board contended that the procedure adopted by the Board for considering the appeals filed by the candidates against the rejection memo issued based on the recommendation of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer is in terms of clause (13) of the notification. The learned Standing Counsel would submit that while taking a decision on the recommendation of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, the Board is not expected to state reasons. In support of that contention, the learned Standing Counsel would place reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in R.S. Dass v. Union of India [ AIR 1987 SC 593 ]. The learned Standing Counsel would also contend that the disparity in the awarding of marks by the three Tantries cannot be subjected to scrutiny by this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of that contention, the learned Standing Counsel would place reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Baidyanath Yadav v. Adithya Narayan Roy [ (2020) 16 SCC 799 ]. 8. The learned Senior Government Pleader would contend that a candidate who has not submitted an experience certificate in the prescribed format, showing the required experience as per the notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board, is not entitled to be considered for selection as Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms. 9. Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, which is situated inside Periyar Tiger Reserve, is a prominent pilgrim centre in Kerala, where lakhs of devotees trek the rugged terrains of Western Ghats to have darshan of Lord Ayyappa. Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple come under the Travancore Devaswom Board. By reason of the custom and tradition, Melsanthies of the Temples are selected every year. The tenure of the Melsanthies is for one year from the 1st of Vrischikam to the 31st of Thulam next year. 10. In Mohandas Embranthiri v. Travancore Devaswom Board [ 2001 (1) KLT 203 ], in the context of selection of Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, a Division Bench of this Court held that the Travancore Devaswom Board, being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, cannot choose any person as Melsanthi without any guidelines. For every year, the choosing of Melsanthi has to be done only after proper selection. For every year, the choosing of Melsanthi has to be done only after proper selection. The Division Bench noticed that the notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board inviting applications for the selection of Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, for one year starting from 31st Thulam, 1176, mentions the basic qualifications necessary for being selected and that, those who have got basic qualifications will be interviewed by the Committee, which will include the Thanthri. On the basis of the interview, a short list will be prepared. The selection will be made from the candidates included in the short list on the basis of lot in front of the sanctum sanctorum. The Interview Board should consist of persons, who have knowledge of the subject on which questions are put. The Division Bench noticed that the purpose of the interview is to get best persons for appointment of Melsanthi at Sabarimala Temple. The knowledge of the candidates in the three topics should be assessed, which can be done with the experts in the field. 11. The issue relating to the procedure for selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple went up to the Apex Court. When a challenge was carried against earlier orders issued by this Court, the Apex Court, by the order dated 15.11.2010 in Civil Appeal No.2570-71 of 2003, referred the matter for mediation. The ‘Terms of Settlement’ arrived at between the parties were placed on record along with the report of the Mediator. The said ‘Terms of Settlement’ fundamentally related to composition of selection committee for interviewing and awarding marks for selecting Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple. By the order dated 06.09.2011, the Apex Court disposed of Civil Appeal No.2570-71 of 2003 in terms of the ‘Terms of Settlement’ arrived at between the parties. The said ‘Terms of Settlement’ read thus; "Terms of Settlement:- 1) The composition of the Selection Committee (for interviewing and awarding marks for selecting “Melsanthi” for both Sabarimala and Malikappuram temples) was one of the seriously contested issues. All parties, after detailed discussions, agreed to have the Selection Committee to consist of the following persons: A. i) President of TDB. ii) The Member of TDB. iii) The remaining Member of TDB. iv) The Commissioner of TDB. All parties, after detailed discussions, agreed to have the Selection Committee to consist of the following persons: A. i) President of TDB. ii) The Member of TDB. iii) The remaining Member of TDB. iv) The Commissioner of TDB. B. i) The Senior Thanthri of "Thazhamon Illam/Madom" ii) The Junior Thanthri of "Thazhamon Illam / Madom" C. The "Outside Thanthri" selected in the process indicated in Clause (a) of Para.2 below: 2) The following modalities have been agreed upon by all as to the formation of the Selection Committee: a. The Thazhamon Illam (hereinafter referred to as "the Illam" for short) will send up names of three persons whom they consider eminent Thanthries to TDB. Keeping those names in serious consideration, TDB will draw up a list of ten persons who are eminent Thanthries. That list will be forwarded to the Senior Raja of Pandalam Royal family (hereinafter referred to as "Senior Raja"). The latter will choose five names from the said list and forward such names to the Illam. The Senior Thanthri of the Illam will choose one of them and communicate the same to TDB. Thereupon, proceedings will be drawn up by TDB appointing the chosen person as the "Outside Thanthri" to be on the selection panel. TDB will notify the same. This panel will be valid for one year. But the same procedure will be adopted for composition of the Selection Committee thereafter also year after year, unless there is statutory intervention. b. It is made clear that if Illam is not sending up the names to TDB within one week of receipt of a requisition for that purpose made by TDB, it is open to TDB to prepare the panel of names and send it to the Senior Raja. Similarly, if Senior Raja is not sending the names chosen by him to the Illam, within one week of receipt of the panel from TDB, it is open to TDB to request Thazhamon Illam to choose one name from the original panel prepared by TDB. c. If the Illam is not selecting one person from the panel sent by the Senior Raja (or by TDB as the case may be) within a reasonable period, it is open to TDB to choose one from the panel already formulated by them and notify him as the "Outside Thanthri" to be on the Selection Committee. c. If the Illam is not selecting one person from the panel sent by the Senior Raja (or by TDB as the case may be) within a reasonable period, it is open to TDB to choose one from the panel already formulated by them and notify him as the "Outside Thanthri" to be on the Selection Committee. The above is only for composition of the Selection Committee. The next task is to select the "Melsanthies". d. TDB will make the names of all the applicants available on their web site, so that it is open to the Senior Raja to find out whether there is any blemish for any of the applicants and communicate that fact to TDB and or to the Senior Thanthri, well ahead of commencement of the selection process. e. Next is the preparation of a list of selected candidates after holding the interview of the applicants by the members of the Selection Committee. While interviewing candidates for "Melsanthies" the members of the Selection Committee can award a total of 90 marks. Out of the 90 marks, 30 marks are set apart for the President, Members and Commissioner of TDB for putting such questions as are deemed necessary for eliciting general knowledge of each candidate and to test his personality. The remaining 60 marks are set apart for putting questions to elicit candidates' knowledge in Sanskrit, poojas, rites, Tanthric Rituals and other religious matters. Questions in this regard shall be put by the remaining Members of the Selecting Committee formulated above. Out of the 60 marks thus set apart for eliciting the candidates' knowledge in Sanskrit, poojas, etc. the Unit comprising of the Senior Thanthri and Junior Thanthri of Thazhamon Illam/ Madom together can award marks up to 30. The other Unit (the "Outside Thanthri") can award marks up to 30. f. After the Selection Committee finalises the list of selected candidates for both Sabarimala and Malikappuram the final choice will be made by draw of lot. The Senior Raja agreed to depute a male child (not above the age of ten) for Sabarimala and a female child (not above the age of ten) for Malikappuram for the purpose of drawing the lot. The Senior Raja agreed to depute a male child (not above the age of ten) for Sabarimala and a female child (not above the age of ten) for Malikappuram for the purpose of drawing the lot. If male/female child for the above purpose is not deputed by the Senior Raja within a reasonable period, it is open to TDB to arrange for draw of lot in such manner as they deem fit. 3) All parties agreed that the appeals can be disposed of in terms of the above settlement." 12. In Krishnan Namboothiri S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [ 2015 (5) KHC 829 ], in the context of selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple, another Division Bench of this Court held that, selection to the post of Melsanthi cannot be treated as a selection merely for public employment and the canvas in which grounds relating to Articles 14, 16, etc., of the Constitution of India would be etched, will not necessarily be carried, as a whole, into such matters. The scheme of the settlement and purpose of the selection to provide Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sannidhanam and Malikappuram temples have to be borne in mind and cohesively treated while assimilating and applying the terms of the settlement. The Division Bench, though declined interference with the selection process, indicated before parting with the case that once the terms of mediation settlement came to be in operation, the guarantee to the pilgrims, believers, worshippers and the faithful followers is that the selection process once carried through the system of the terms of that settlement will give them two persons who will occupy the adorable status of being the Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sannidhanam and Malikappuram temples. When such seeds of faith are intricately connected with religion, judicial review is impermissible to embark upon and consider any rival claims in the manner as is sought to be raised in the writ petitions. This is all the more so when no breach of the Constitution of India is demonstrated. 13. In Rajesh J. Potty v. Travancore Devaswom Board [ 2018 (5) KHC 220 ] a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case which was filed by an applicant who applied to take part in the selection process leading to the appointment of Melsanthi at Sabarimala Temple. 13. In Rajesh J. Potty v. Travancore Devaswom Board [ 2018 (5) KHC 220 ] a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case which was filed by an applicant who applied to take part in the selection process leading to the appointment of Melsanthi at Sabarimala Temple. In the writ petition, it was alleged that, the petitioner is incapacitated from taking part in the process because, as per Ext.P1 notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board, only a Santhi (Priest) who has had 12 years’ experience, out of which, 10 years being spent continuously serving as a Melsanthi (Head Priest) of a temple would alone obtain eligibility for being selected as the Melsanthi of Sabarimala Temple. In the writ petition, it was contended that the above stipulation mandating continuous 10 years’ service as Melsanthi amounts to an illegal classification among the Santhies, since it has no rationale nexus to the objective sought to be achieved by such classification. The petitioner pointed out that till 2016, there was no such stipulation in the notifications, as evidenced by Ext.P9 notification for the year 2013 and Ext.P10 notification for the year. 14. In Rajesh J. Potty [ 2018 (5) KHC 220 ] the Division Bench noticed that Ext.P1 notification does not provide that every Santhi who has put in 12 years’ service is automatically eligible; but it additionally prescribes a condition that such Santhies should also have served as a Melsanthi in a temple for a continuous period of 10 years out of this, for being rendered eligible to be appointed as the Melsanthi of Sabarimala Temple. Such prescriptive conditions to determine eligibility of a person can, by no stretch of imagination, be seen as a sub-classification; but the 12 years continuous service as a Melsanthi in any other temple is only a qualificational condition precedent and the fixing of such a period is intended to narrow the field of choice to the most experienced in terms of years. This becomes all the more relevant because, going by the notification, a person who becomes the Melsanthi in Sabarimala can apply again only after a period of 10 years. This becomes all the more relevant because, going by the notification, a person who becomes the Melsanthi in Sabarimala can apply again only after a period of 10 years. These are the prescriptions stipulated in the notification, not to discriminate among persons; but solely to ensure that only a person with the stature and experience behooving the sanctity and divinity of Sabarimala, which is one of the most or perhaps the most prominent temples in the country, is identified and appointed. Before the Division Bench, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Chapter 5 of the Travancore Devaswom Manual published by the Board in the year 2011 treats 'Santhikkars' as a single class and that the provisions of a Melsanthi therein are only with respect to the volume and nature of work in a particular temple. Manual does not speak specifically about the difference between Melsanthies and other Santhies, but only that Melsanthies and Keezhsanthies are appointed in temples where there is a requirement of more than one Santhi. Before the Division Bench, it was argued by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board that the prescription in Ext.P1 notification is in the nature of specified qualifications for the Sabarimala Temple alone and that these prescriptions are at variance with those for other temples, since Sabarimala is not an ordinary temple, which has its own singular characteristics, which would require the best and the most experienced Santhi to be appointed as the Melsanthi. The Board, therefore, in the year 2016, thought it fit to enumerate certain adscititious conditions to identify the best candidate, by stipulating that only a person, who has 12 years’ experience as a Santhi, out of which 10 years being continuously served as a Melsanthi of another temple, would obtain eligibility for being included in the field of choice for appointment as the Melsanthi of Sabarimala. Even when all these stipulations regarding qualification are obtained to a person, he only comes within the field of choice and he does not get any vested right to be appointed, since such appointment is based on a further selection in the manner as has been postulated by the Apex Court in its judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.2570-71 of 2003. 15. 15. In Rajesh J. Potty [ 2018 (5) KHC 220 ], on consideration of the aforesaid contentions on the prescription of the qualifications mentioned in Ext.P1 notification, the Division Bench found that the attempt of the Travancore Devaswom Board should always be to find the best among the Santhies, so that he will be able to perform as a Purappedasanthi of Sabarimala Temple for a continuous period of one year. His devotion, his competence, his experience and his devoutness are all imperatively relevant criteria, which will require to be specifically and pointedly examined and assessed by the competent authorities; and in order to find the person most suitable for the post, the prescription that he should have served as a Melsanthi for a continuous period of 10 years in the 12 year period of experience as a Santhi cannot be found to be perverse in any manner. 16. The norms that only Malayala Brahmins are entitled for selection as Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple was under challenge in W.P.(C) No.26003 of 2017 and connected cases. Those writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment dated 27.02.2024 – Vishnunarayanan v. Secretary, Department of Revenue (Devaswom) [2024 (2) KHC SN 10 : 2024:KER: 15059]. SLP(Civil)No.19294 of 2024 filed challenging the said judgment is now pending consideration before the Apex Court. 17. As already noticed, the qualification prescribed for selection as Melsanthi is that the applicant should be a person having service as Melsanthi for a continuous period of 10 years out of a total period of 12 years in a temple which opens twice daily and having three poojas and where public is having right to worship. 18. 17. As already noticed, the qualification prescribed for selection as Melsanthi is that the applicant should be a person having service as Melsanthi for a continuous period of 10 years out of a total period of 12 years in a temple which opens twice daily and having three poojas and where public is having right to worship. 18. In Suo motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board and another [2021:KER:44092] - order dated 08.11.2021 in SSCR No.5 of 2021 - this Court found that the Travancore Devaswom Board shall prescribe a format for the certificate that has to be enclosed along with the application for selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple showing the required experience of the candidate in a temple which opens twice daily and having three poojas and where public is having right to worship, specifying the competent authority who has to issue such certificate in respect of the temples under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board and in respect of temples other than those under the management of the Board, where public is having right to worship. By that order, the Board was directed to take a decision in that regard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of the said order, which was directed to be placed before this Court for approval. 19. Based on the aforesaid order in SSCR No.5 of 2021, the Travancore Devaswom Board filed DBA No.5 of 2022 seeking approval for the format of the certificate that has to be enclosed along with the application for selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms, showing the required experience of the candidates. That DBA was disposed of by the order dated 04.07.2022 - Travancore Devaswom Board v. Deputy Examiner for Local Fund Audit and another [2022:KER:33564] – granting approval to the format of experience certificate (Annexure A1). In that order, 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. Paragraph 18 and also the last paragraph of the order dated 04.07.2022 read thus; “18. In that order, 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. Paragraph 18 and also the last paragraph of the order dated 04.07.2022 read thus; “18. Having perused Annexure A1 format of the experience certificate that has to be enclosed along with the application for selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple, showing the required experience of the candidates, we find that, in Clause (4) of the format (above the column) the required qualification has to be specified, i.e., the applicant should be a person having service as Melsanthi for a continuous period of 10 years out of a total period of 12 years in a temple which opens twice daily and having three poojas and where public is having right to worship. In addition to this, the experience certificate shall bear the full name, designation and address along with the office seal of the officer/authority issuing such certificate and also the date. 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. Subject to the aforesaid modification, we grant approval to (Annexure A1) format of experience certificate that has to be enclosed along with the application for selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple, showing the required experience of the candidates.” 20. In the report of the learned Observer, it is stated that the mark list of the individual candidates and also the tabulation sheets are countersigned by the learned Observer. The select list of candidates for selection to the post of Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom consists of 25 candidates, which contains the marks secured by the respective candidates. The said select list is signed by the Devaswom Commissioner. The select list of candidates for selection to the post of Melsanthi of Malikappuram Devaswom consists of 15 candidates, which contains the marks secured by the respective candidates. The said select list is also signed by the Devaswom Commissioner. The said select list is signed by the Devaswom Commissioner. The select list of candidates for selection to the post of Melsanthi of Malikappuram Devaswom consists of 15 candidates, which contains the marks secured by the respective candidates. The said select list is also signed by the Devaswom Commissioner. In the report, the learned Observer has stated that after the culmination of the interview all the mark sheets provided to each of the members of the selection committee, where the marks obtained by the candidates were entered have been countersigned by the Observer and the same were entrusted to the Devaswom Commissioner for tabulation of the marks and to keep them in safe custody, as ordered by this Court in SSCR No.64 of 2024. The Observer has also countersigned all the tabulation sheets before entrusting them to the Devaswom Commissioner for safe custody. In the report, the learned Observer has also stated that during the selection process conducted on 25.09.2024 and 26.09.2024, no complaints have been raised by any of the candidates who have attended the selection process. It was conducted as directed by this Court and the whole process of interview on those two days was videographed. 21. The notification issued inviting applications for selection as Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms for the year 1200ME (2024-25) is available in the files handed over by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, in terms of the directions contained in the order of this Court dated 08.10.2024. The format of the application and that of the experience certificate also form part of that notification. We notice that, despite the specific direction contained in the order of this Court 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 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. 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 has to be deprecated in the strongest words and we do so. 22. As already noticed in the order dated 10.10.2024 the reason for the decision taken by the Board in the appeal filed by the respective candidates, invoking the provisions under clause (13) of the notification, against the rejection memo issued by the Secretary of the Board, based on an adverse recommendation by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, is not discernible from the files. A tabulation sheet available at page Nos.297 to 329 of File No.ROC 8063/2024/SAB contains the decision of the Board on the appeals filed by the respective candidates. Column No.1 of the tabulation sheet contains the name and address of the respective candidates. Column No.2 contains the reason for rejection of the application, based on the report of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer. In column No.3, which is the remarks column, the decision taken by the Board is recorded as “can be considered” or “cannot be considered”. 23. During the course of arguments, on a specific query made by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that the reasoning of the Board for taking such a decision on the appeal filed by the respective candidates invoking the provisions under clause (13) of the notification is not recorded in the remarks column. 23. During the course of arguments, on a specific query made by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that the reasoning of the Board for taking such a decision on the appeal filed by the respective candidates invoking the provisions under clause (13) of the notification is not recorded in the remarks column. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in R.S. Dass [ AIR 1987 SC 593 ], the learned Standing Counsel would contend that in the absence of a statutory provision, principles of natural justice does not require the Board to record reasons for rejecting or allowing an appeal filed by the candidate invoking the provisions under clause (13) of the notification issued for selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms, against the rejection memo issued based on the recommendation of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer. 24. A reading of the decision of the Apex Court in R.S. Dass [ AIR 1987 SC 593 ] would show that in that decision, the Apex Court was dealing with the process of selection for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service and contention raised before the Apex Court was that in the absence of statutory provisions, the principles of natural justice require the selection committee to record reasons for the supersession of officers to enable them to make representations against their supersession. On the other hand, in the instant case, this Court is dealing with the decision taken by the Board in an appeal filed by the respective candidates challenging the rejection memo issued by the Secretary of the Board, based on an adverse recommendation in the report of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer. 25. In National Highways Authority of India v. Madhukar Kumar [ (2022) 14 SCC 661 ] a Two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court was dealing with an appeal arising out of the judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in L.P.A.No.388 of 2015. The said appeal arises out of the judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5643 of 2012. The relief sought in that writ petition was to restrain the construction of a toll plaza at 194km of NH-30 in the four-laning of Patna-Bakhtiyarpur Section, in violation of Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008. The said appeal arises out of the judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5643 of 2012. The relief sought in that writ petition was to restrain the construction of a toll plaza at 194km of NH-30 in the four-laning of Patna-Bakhtiyarpur Section, in violation of Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008. In the writ petition, it was contended that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) had not assigned any reason for establishing the toll plaza within the Municipal area. Further, the establishment of the toll plaza at its present location will cause great difficulties to the residents of the locality because they will have to cross the toll plaza on many occasions in a day, and on all occasions, they will be liable to pay the toll. 26. In Madhukar Kumar [ (2022) 14 SCC 661 ], on the duty to give reasons, the Apex Court noticed that an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial power must record reasons for its decision. This is subject to the exception where the requirement has been expressly or by necessary implication done away with. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India [ (1990) 4 SCC 594 ] the Constitution Bench surveyed the entire case law in this regard and held that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons. The Constitution Bench held further that recording of reasons excludes the chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said principle would apply equally to all decisions and its applications cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons. If the appellate or revisional authority disagrees, the reasons must be contained in the order under challenge. Thus, it is settled law that the reasons are harbinger between the mind of the maker of the order to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. It also excludes the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical or capricious decisions or conclusions. The reasons assure an inbuilt support for the conclusion/decision reached. The order when it affects the right of a citizen or a person, irrespective of the fact, whether it is quasi-judicial or administrative, fair play requires recording of germane and relevant precise reasons. The recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned consciously applied its mind to the facts on record. It also aids the appellate or revisional authority or the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or the appellate jurisdiction of the Apex Court under Article 136 to see whether the authority concerned acted fairly and justly to mete out justice to the aggrieved person. The applicability of the principles of natural justice is not a rule of thumb or a straitjacket formula as an abstract proposition of law. It depends on the facts of the case, the nature of the inquiry and the effect of the order/decision on the rights of the person and attendant circumstances. 27. In Madhukar Kumar [ (2022) 14 SCC 661 ], the Apex Court noticed that in Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority [ (2022) 11 SCC 1 ], which arose in the context of the decision taken to construct a new Parliament building and certain other structures, while dealing with the question relating to non-application of mind, the Court has also dealt with the impact of there being no reasons, wherein it was noticed that the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. They are means to an end and not end in themselves. The goal of these principles is to prevent prejudice. It is from the same source that the requirement of application of mind emerges in decision-making process as it ensures objectivity in decision-making. They are means to an end and not end in themselves. The goal of these principles is to prevent prejudice. It is from the same source that the requirement of application of mind emerges in decision-making process as it ensures objectivity in decision-making. In order to ascertain that due application of mind has taken place in a decision, the presence of reasons on record plays a crucial role. The presence of reasons would fulfil the twin objectives of revealing an objective application of mind and assisting the adjudicatory body in reviewing the decision. 28. In Rajeev Suri [ (2022) 11 SCC 1 ], the question that arose for consideration before the Apex Court was whether the statement in the recorded minutes of the Central Vista Committee (CVC) meeting “the features of the proposed Parliament building should be in sync with the existing Parliament building” is or is not indicative of an application of mind. The Apex Court noticed that, in cases when the statute itself provides for an express requirement of a reasoned order, it is understandable that the absence of reasons would be a violation of a legal requirement and thus, illegal. However, in cases when there is no express requirement of reasons, the ulterior effect of the absence of reasons on the final decision cannot be sealed in a straight-jacketed manner. Such cases need to be examined from a broad perspective in the light of overall circumstances. The Court would look at the nature of the decision-making body, the nature of rights involved, stakeholders, the form and substance of the decision, etc. The list is not exhaustive for the simple reason that drawing a conclusion of non-application of mind from mere absence of reasons is a matter of pure inference and the same cannot be drawn until and unless other circumstances too point in the same direction. Thereafter, the Apex Court, relying on the decision in Union of India v. E.G. Nambudiri [ (1991) 3 SCC 38 ], held that had it been a case of any other administrative committee required to adjudicate upon the rights of individuals, merely because it is not mandatory to record reasons would not absolve it of the requirement of objective consideration of the proposal. The ultimate enquiry is of application of mind and a reasoned order is merely one element in that enquiry. The ultimate enquiry is of application of mind and a reasoned order is merely one element in that enquiry. In a given case, the Court can still advert to other elements of the decision-making process to weigh the factum of application of mind. The test to be applied in such a case would be of a reasonable link between the material placed before the decision-making body and the conclusion reached in consideration thereof. The Court may decide in the context of the overall circumstances of the case, and a sole element (of no reasons or lack of elaborate reasons) cannot be enough to make or break the decision as long as the judicial mind is convinced of substantial application of mind from other circumstances. Even in common law jurisprudence, there is no absolute requirement of reasoned order in all decisions. 29. In Rajeev Suri [ (2022) 11 SCC 1 ], the Apex Court noticed the decision of the House of Lords in R. v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [(1989) 2 All ER 609)], wherein it was contended that the decision is not based on convincing reasons and therefore, must be declared as illegal. The House of Lords refused to entertain this contention and noted that the mere absence of reasons would not render the decision irrational. Lord Keith, in his opinion, noted that the only significance of the absence of reasons would be that if circumstances overwhelmingly point towards a different conclusion than the one reached by the body, it would be fatal. The absence of reasons for a decision where there is no duty to give them cannot of itself provide any support for the suggested irrationality of the decision. The only significance of the absence of reasons is that if all other known facts and circumstances appear to point overwhelmingly in favour of a different decision, the decision-maker who has given no reasons cannot complain if the court draws the inference that he had no rational reason for his decision. 30. The only significance of the absence of reasons is that if all other known facts and circumstances appear to point overwhelmingly in favour of a different decision, the decision-maker who has given no reasons cannot complain if the court draws the inference that he had no rational reason for his decision. 30. In Rajeev Suri [ (2022) 11 SCC 1 ], the Apex Court noticed the decisions in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi [ (1991) 2 SCC 716 ] and Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. v. Shibban Lal Saxena [ (1975) 2 SCC 818 ], wherein it was held that if the function/decision of the Government is administrative, in law, ordinarily there is no requirement to be accompanied by a statement of reasons, unless there is an express statutory requirement in that regard. Again, in Sarat Kumar Dash v. Biswajit Patnaik [(1995) Supp.1 SCC 434], it was observed that, in the field of administrative action, reasons are the link between the maker of the order or the author of the decision and the order itself. The record can be called to consider whether the author had given due consideration to the facts placed before him before he arrived at the decision. Therefore, the requirement of reasons in cases which do not demand it in an express manner is based on desirability, and the same is advised to the extent possible without impinging upon the character of the decision-making body and the needs of administrative efficiency. 31. In Madhukar Kumar [ (2022) 14 SCC 661 ], the Apex Court held that as noticed by the Three-Judge Bench in Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. [ (1975) 2 SCC 818 ], there is no general duty, when an administrative decision is taken, to give reasons. A statute may, however, explicitly provide that the executive authority must provide reasons and it must be recorded in writing. A case in point is the first proviso to Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 itself. The desirability of a general duty, in the case of administrative action, to support decisions with reason, is open to question. One of the most important reasons is the burden it would put on the administration. Administrative decisions are made in a wide spectrum of situations and contexts. The desirability of a general duty, in the case of administrative action, to support decisions with reason, is open to question. One of the most important reasons is the burden it would put on the administration. Administrative decisions are made in a wide spectrum of situations and contexts. The executive power of the Union and States are provided in Articles 73 and 162 of the Constitution of India, respectively. Undoubtedly, in India, every State action must be fair, failing which, it will fall foul of the mandate of Article 14. The duty to give reasons would arise even in the case of administrative action, where legal rights are at stake and the administrative action adversely affects legal rights. There may be something in the nature or the context under which the administrative action is taken, which may necessitate the authority being forthcoming with rational reasons. There are other decisions, which essentially belong more to the realm of executive policy-making, which ordinarily may not require the furnishing of reasons. 32. In Madhukar Kumar [ (2022) 14 SCC 661 ], the Apex Court noticed the advantages, undoubtedly, of introducing a reasons-driven regime. Persons, who may have a right or an interest, would know, what are the reasons which impelled the administrator to take a particular decision. Judicial review in India, which encompasses the wide contours of public interest litigation as well, would receive immeasurable assistance if the reasons for particular decisions were articulated to the extent possible. The giving of reasons also has a disciplining effect on the administrator. This is for the reason that the reasons would capture the thought process, which culminated in the decision, and it would help the administrator steer clear of the vices of illegality, irrationality and also disproportionality. Reasons could help to establish the application of mind. Conversely, the absence of reasons may unerringly point to non-application of mind. The duty to act fairly may require reasons to be recorded but the said duty, though there is a general duty on all State players to act fairly, may have its underpinnings, ultimately in legal rights. 33. In Madhukar Kumar [ (2022) 14 SCC 661 ], the Apex Court noticed that it is one thing to say that there should be reasons, which persuaded the administrator to take a particular decision and a different thing to find that the reasons must be incorporated in a decision. 33. In Madhukar Kumar [ (2022) 14 SCC 661 ], the Apex Court noticed that it is one thing to say that there should be reasons, which persuaded the administrator to take a particular decision and a different thing to find that the reasons must be incorporated in a decision. The question relating to the duty to communicate such a decision would arise for consideration in different situations, having regard to the impact, which it, in law, produces. On the facts of the case on hand, the Apex Court noticed that the second proviso to Rule 17 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 provides not only for there being reasons but also the reasons for refusal to permit barricades must be communicated. If the law provides for a duty to record reasons in writing, undoubtedly, it must be followed, and it would amount to a violation of the statute, if it were not followed. Even if there is no duty to record reasons or support the order with reasons, there cannot be any doubt that, for every decision, there would be and there must be, a reason. The Constitution does not contemplate any public authority, exercising power with caprice or without any rationale. But here again, in the absence of the duty to record reasons, the Court is not to be clothed with the power to strike down administrative action for the mere reason that no reasons are to be found recorded. In certain situations, the reason for a particular decision may be gleaned from the pleadings of the authority, when the matter is tested in a court. From the materials, including the file notings, which are made available, the Court may conclude that there were reasons and the action was not illegal or arbitrary. From admitted facts, the Court may conclude that there was sufficient justification, and the mere absence of reasons, would not be sufficient to invalidate the action of the public authority. Thus, reasons may, in certain situations, have to be recorded in the order. In other contexts, it would suffice that the reasons are to be found in the files. The Court may, when there is no duty to record reasons, support an administrative decision, with reference to the pleadings aided by materials.74 34. Thus, reasons may, in certain situations, have to be recorded in the order. In other contexts, it would suffice that the reasons are to be found in the files. The Court may, when there is no duty to record reasons, support an administrative decision, with reference to the pleadings aided by materials.74 34. In Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [(1971) 1 All ER 1148] Lord Denning, M.R. observed that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120] it was observed that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. 35. In Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji [ AIR 1952 SC 16 ] the Apex Court held that public orders publicly made, in the exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. 36. Following the principle laid down in Gordhandas Bhanji [ AIR 1952 SC 16 ] the Apex Court has reiterated in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [ (1978) 1 SCC 405 ] that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. 37. Following the principle laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the Apex Court in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P. C. Kakkar [ (2003) 4 SCC 364 ] held that reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. 37. Following the principle laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the Apex Court in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P. C. Kakkar [ (2003) 4 SCC 364 ] held that reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, speaking out. The 'inscrutable face of a sphinx' is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. 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 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. 39. 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. 39. In the complaint dated 30.09.2024 made by K.Viswambharan Santhi of Varkala, it is alleged that certain candidates, who do not have the required experience, as per the notification, were included in the shortlist for interview and they are subsequently included in the select list for the draw of lots scheduled to be held on 17.10.2024. In the other two complaints, it is alleged that the outside Tantri has awarded the full mark (30 marks) to various candidates and that there were lot of corrections in the marks awarded in the interview. On the above aspect, we notice that the individual mark list and tabulation sheets are countersigned by the learned Observer. Insofar as the complaint made against Sri.V.Sankaran Namboothiri, who is Sl.No.1 in the shortlist for Sabarimala Devaswom, the file contains a favourable report by the Vigilance Wing regarding his experience. The mark awarded to that candidate by the outside Tantri is lower than the mark awarded by the Senior Tantri of Thazhamon Illam/Madom. 40. From the files handed over by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board we notice that in addition to additional respondents 5 and 6, three others, namely, Sinoj Narayanan, Sankaranarayana Pramod T.M. and Prasanth G. Nampoothiri were included in the list of candidates for interview for Sabarimala Devaswom, based on the decision taken by the Board on their appeals. Sinoj Narayanan and Sankaranarayana Pramod T.M. were also included in the list of candidates for interview for Malikappuram Devaswom. The 5th respondent Pramod M. is also included in the list of candidates for interview for Malikappuram Devaswom. In respect of Sinoj Narayanan, the adverse remark in the report of the Vigilance Wing is that he belongs to the community 'Elayath', though the certificate produced along with the application supports his candidature in terms of the notification issued by the Board. The decision taken by the Board in the appeal filed by Sinoj Narayanan is that he can be considered for interview. The decision taken by the Board in the appeal filed by Sinoj Narayanan is that he can be considered for interview. In respect of Sankaranarayana Pramod T.M., the Vigilance recommended that the opinion of the Tantri of Sabarimala should be ascertained, since in the enquiry it was revealed that his family, i.e., Thiyannoor Mana, is having Tantric rites of various temples in Palakkad District. Page No.265 of the file contains an opinion of the Tantri of Sabarimala, wherein it is stated that a Tantri of another temple should be avoided while appointing Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms. Along with the appeal filed by Sankaranarayana Pramod T.M., which is available at page Nos.389 to 393 of the file, two letters dated 08.09.2023 and 09.09.2023 were produced from Cherumukku Vallabhan Akkithirippad and Panavoor Sree Parameswaran (Kuttan) Nampoothiri, to show that Thiyannoor Mana is not having Tantric rites in respect of any temples. The decision of the Board on the said appeal, which is available at page No.307, is that his candidature can be considered. In respect of Prasanth G. Nampoothiri, the adverse recommendation of the Vigilance Wing is for the reason that he was on leave for the period from 01.04.2012 to 22.11.2013. In page No.319 of the file, the decision of the Board is recorded that his candidature can be considered. In the case of the additional 5th respondent Pramod M., who is included in the select lists for Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms, the adverse recommendation made by the Vigilance Wing was on the ground that the temple does not have three poojas daily and as such he does not fulfil the qualification required in the notification. The application submitted by the 5th respondent is supported by an experience certificate in the prescribed format, in which it is specified that the temple opens twice daily and has three poojas as provided in the said notification. During the course of enquiry in the appeal filed invoking the provisions under clause (13) of the guidelines, which forms part of the notification, the 5th respondent produced certain documents to show that the temple is having three poojas daily. Though the reasoning of the Board for considering the 5th respondent for interview is not discernible from the files, those documents are available in the file. Though the reasoning of the Board for considering the 5th respondent for interview is not discernible from the files, those documents are available in the file. When the Board takes such a decision to overrule the adverse recommendation made by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, it ought to have obtained a further report of the Vigilance Wing. For the aforesaid reason, we hold that the name of the 5th respondent can be included in the process of the draw of lots scheduled to be held on 17.10.2024 for selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms. 41. Insofar as the 6th respondent is concerned, the absence of experience certificate from 01.11.2020 to 14.11.2023, along with the application submitted pursuant to the notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom is not in dispute. Though the 6th respondent submitted an appeal invoking the provisions contained in clause (13) of the guidelines, which forms part of the notification, he could not produce an experience certificate for the said period, either in the prescribed format or in any other manner before the appellate authority (Board). The document, which the 6th respondent produced before the appellate authority, is a certificate issued by the Tantri. In the absence of an experience certificate for the period from 01.11.2020 to 14.11.2023, the candidature of the 6th respondent should not have been considered for the interview held on 25.09.2024 for selection of Melsanthi in Sabarimala Devaswom. In such circumstances, the name of the 6th respondent cannot be included in the process of the draw of lots, which is scheduled to be held on 17.10.2024, for selection of Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom. 42. Another issue is regarding the awarding of marks to various candidates by the third Tantri, i.e., the outside Tantri. The marks awarded by the third Tantri in respect of the interview for the selection of Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom ranges from 16 to 29 and that for the selection of Melsanthi of Malikappuram Devaswom ranges from 13 to 28. In respect of Sabarimala Devaswom, the marks awarded by the outside Tantri is comparable to the marks awarded by the Senior Tantri of Thazhamon Illam/Madom in respect of applicants with Sl.Nos.1, 3, 11, 12, 14 and 21 and also in respect of applicants with Sl.Nos.1, 4 and 8 of Malikappuram Devaswom. In respect of Sabarimala Devaswom, the marks awarded by the outside Tantri is comparable to the marks awarded by the Senior Tantri of Thazhamon Illam/Madom in respect of applicants with Sl.Nos.1, 3, 11, 12, 14 and 21 and also in respect of applicants with Sl.Nos.1, 4 and 8 of Malikappuram Devaswom. There is disparity in the marks awarded by the outside Tantri when compared to the marks awarded by the Tantries of Thazhamon Illam/Madom in respect of applicants with Sl.Nos.4, 8, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 in respect of Sabarimala Devaswom and applicants with Sl.Nos.2, 8, 10, 12 and 14 in respect of Malikappuram Devaswom. In respect of Sl.No.6 in Malikappuram Devaswom, the marks awarded by the outside Tantri is lower than the marks awarded by both the Tantries of Thazhamon Illam/Madom. 43. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Baidyanath Yadav v. Aditya Narayan Roy [ (2020) 16 SCC 799 ], the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would contend that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 is very limited and this Court cannot re-assess the merit of the individual candidates. In that decision, the Apex Court relied on its earlier decision in M.V. Thimmaiah v. Union Public Service Commission [ (2008) 2 SCC 119 ]. 44. Though the complaint, which is referred to in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the order of this Court dated 10.10.2024, contains certain allegations against the outside Tantri regarding the awarding of marks, as already noticed hereinbefore, the marks awarded by the outside Tantri is comparable to the marks awarded by the Senior Tantri of Thazhamon Illam/Madom in respect of various candidates. When the scheme of interview provides for maximum 30 marks for Senior and Junior Tantries of Thazhamon Illam/Madom together and another 30 marks for outside Tantri, considering the above aspect in the light of the facts and circumstances stated hereinbefore and the law laid down in the decisions of the Apex Court referred to supra, we find that re-assessment of the merits of the individual candidate is legally impermissible in exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 45. From the tabulation sheets, we notice that the total marks awarded to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.35934 of 2024 is 44.25. 45. From the tabulation sheets, we notice that the total marks awarded to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.35934 of 2024 is 44.25. The marks awarded by the Tantries of Thazhamon Illam/Madom are on the lower side, when compared to the mark awarded by the outside Tantri. When the total marks secured by the writ petitioner is only 44.25, which is below the benchmark of 54, he cannot be permitted to participate in the draw of lots scheduled to be held on 17.10.2024. 46. In the result, SSCR No.67 of 2024 is disposed of in terms of the directions contained hereinbefore at paragraphs 40 and 41, in respect of additional respondents 5 and 6. The Board is directed to proceed with the draw of lots scheduled to be held on 17.10.2024, after excluding the name of the additional 6th respondent. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.35934 of 2024 is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in that writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Registry to keep the report of the learned Observer and also the complaints in a sealed cover and return the records to the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board.