2009 Supreme(Ker) 1106

High Court of Kerala
V. Giri, J.
Dr M K Ramachandran Nair & Ors - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala & Ors - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 37082 of 2007
Decided On : 30-06-2009

The Upa Lok Ayukta has jurisdiction to entertain, investigate and proceed with a complaint involving an 'allegation' and file a report in terms of Section 12(3) of the Act.

Headnote:

LOK AYUKTA - JURISDICTION - COMPLAINT - INVESTIGATION - PUBLIC SERVANT - SELECTION PROCESS - OMISSION AND IRREGULARITIES - SETTING ASIDE OF SELECTION LIST - DIRECTIONS TO CONSTITUTE A FRESH SELECTION BOARD - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT - REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY - SETTING ASIDE OF ORDER - DIRECTIONS TO IMPLEAD CANDIDATES - FINAL REPORT.

Fact of the Case:

A complaint was filed before the Kerala Upa LokAyukta, alleging that selection to the post of Assistant Grade II in the Kerala University was vitiated by serious irregularities in the conduct of the selection and favouritism and nepotism indulged in by the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University in the matter of selecting the candidates, who were ultimately appointed. The complaint was treated as an 'allegation' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act (the Act). The Upa Lok Ayukta proceeded to draw up a report under Section 12(3) of the Act, inter alia, recommending that appropriate legal proceedings be initiated against the Vice Chancellor, Registrar and members of the Syndicate as they are guilty of favouritism, nepotism and political patronage in the selection conducted to determine the suitability of the candidates as Assistant Grade II in the University. There was a further recommendation that the rank list in question and all appointments made in accordance with the rank list be set aside and the Vice Chancellor of the University should constitute a new selection board including all the members of the present selection committee and conduct a fresh test for all candidates who applied, without insisting on a fresh application.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the Upa Lok Ayukta had jurisdiction to entertain, investigate and proceed with the complaint and file a report in terms of Section 12(3) of the Act. The Court also found that the Upa Lok Ayukta was justified in entering a finding that the selection process was vitiated due to the unexplained failure on the part of the University in producing the OMR sheets, which, on the basis of the materials on record, according to the Upa Lok Ayukta, were despatched by the outside evaluation agency to the competent officer of the University. The Court further found that there was evidence of deliberate attempt on the part of the members of the selection committee to pull up persons, who had not fared well in the written examination to come within the zone of consideration by awarding them unreasonably high marks in the interview. The Court also found that the Upa Lok Ayukta was right in exonerating the Registrar from any culpability as he was only a paid employee of the University and he was not responsible for the selection.

Issues: 1. Whether the Upa Lok Ayukta had jurisdiction to entertain, investigate and proceed with the complaint and file a report in terms of Section 12(3) of the Act? 2. Whether the Upa Lok Ayukta was justified in entering a finding that the selection process was vitiated? 3. Whether the Upa Lok Ayukta was right in exonerating the Registrar from any culpability?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Upa Lok Ayukta had jurisdiction to entertain, investigate and proceed with the complaint and file a report in terms of Section 12(3) of the Act. The Court reasoned that the complaint involved an 'allegation' and not a 'grievance' and therefore, the proscription under Section 8(1) of the Act read with the second schedule to the Act was not applicable. 2. The Court held that the Upa Lok Ayukta was justified in entering a finding that the selection process was vitiated. The Court reasoned that there was evidence of unexplained failure on the part of the University in producing the OMR sheets, deliberate attempt on the part of the members of the selection committee to pull up persons, who had not fared well in the written examination to come within the zone of consideration by awarding them unreasonably high marks in the interview and incongruities arising from the assessment of the handwriting of the individual candidates apparently for the purpose of enabling those persons to include in the zone of consideration. 3. The Court held that the Upa Lok Ayukta was right in exonerating the Registrar from any culpability as he was only a paid employee of the University and he was not responsible for the selection.

Final Decision: The Court set aside the order of the Upa Lok Ayukta and directed the Government to constitute a High Power Committee to conduct an enquiry and investigation into the various aspects of the selection process. The Court also directed the Upa Lok Ayukta to treat the investigation report as one compiled and submitted before it in terms of Section 9 of the Lok Ayukta Act and to proceed to draw up a final report in terms of Section 12(3) of the Act.