1. The petitioners in this writ petition are presently working as Readers under the 2nd respondent College. The petitioners had responded to a notification issued by the respondents for appointment to the post of Reader in Community Medicine and Reader in Pathology, and the 1st and 2nd petitioners were appointed pursuant to the selection procedure conducted by the College. It is not in dispute that the appointment of the petitioners were approved and subsequently their probation in the posts declared. The 3rd respondent was an applicant to the post of Lecturer [Practice in Medicine and Community Medicine] that was notified in the notification issued by the 2nd respondent College, but was not successful in getting an appointment pursuant to the selection process that followed. It would appear that the 3rd respondent approached the 1st respondent Kerala Lok Ayukta, through Ext.P6 complaint submitted under Section 9 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999. The prayers sought for in the complaint are essentially for an investigation into the allegations levelled against the public servants mentioned in the complaint; for a recommendation to the Government to cancel all the alleged illegal appointments; to recommend to the Government to recover the entire benefits received by the party respondents, who were occupying their respective posts, and for a declaration to the effect that respondents 1 to 3 in the complaint should not continue to hold the posts held by them. There are also other reliefs such as the payment of compensation to the complainant that are prayed for in the said complaint. The petitioners in the writ petition were arrayed as respondents 11 and 12 in Ext.P6 complaint. The allegations in Ext.P6 complaint with regard to the petitioners are to be found in clauses xv and xvii of paragraph 4 of the complaint, which read as under:

xv. The Next illegal appointment is the appointment of the 11th Respondent to the vacancy of Reader in the Department of Community Medicine. His teaching experience was with the Department of Organon Medicine at RVS Homoeo Medical College at Tamil Nadu. With the consent and connivance of the Principal and management of the 4th Respondent College, the 11th respondent managed to get appointment to the post of the Reader in Community medicine on the strength of a fabricated experience certificate in the field of Community Medicine. The teaching experience of the candidate should be in the same subject as per the University Rule and Regulations and as per the CCH rules. This illegality was exposed and the complainant has pointed out the same before the Respondents 1 to 3 immediately after the appointment. True photocopy of the Complaint dated 17/09/2014 filed by the Complainant to the 3rd Respondent with copy to Respondents 1 & 2 is produced herewith an marked as Exhibit P6.

xvii. The 12th Respondent is another person illegally appointed with the consent and connivance of the Management and Respondents 1 to 3. The 12th Respondent was appointed to the vacancy of Reader in the Department of Pathology. She also got appointment on the basis of a fabricated experience certificate with the consent of the authorities. She does not posses the teaching experience in the concerned Department, on the contrary she was a Lecturer in the Department of OBG Teaching facilities in the RVS Medical College, Sulur. To protect the vested interest of the Management the authorities ratified her appointment ignoring the protest raised by the Complainant. In the instant case also the complaint submitted documentary evidence before the authorities to show that the 12th Respondent does not have the experience in the concerned subject. True Photocopy of the list of teaching faculties of RVS Homeopathic Medical College, Sulur in the department of OBG Teaching Faculties, from the inspection report of Central Council For Homeopathy dated 21/11/2014 is produced here with and marked as Exhibit P8.

2. It is the case of the petit