IMPORTANT POINTS
Issuance of a notification for appointment is certainly a matter in relation to an action taken in respect of appointment. Appointment includes various stages; prescription of qualifications for a post to be notified, decision to notify, notification issued, process of selection until an order of appointment is issued. Contention of the respondent that Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta can conduct an investigation in relation to an action in respect of appointment is not tenable. In our view, Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta, as the case may be, has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint on the above subject.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

1. Aggrieved by an order dated 25.02.2011 in Complaint No. 1337 of 2010 (Exhibit-P3), wherein Upa Lok Ayukta has held that a complaint involving grievance in respect of an action taken by Kerala University, the petitioner herein, in respect of an appointment, is maintainable before the Lok Ayukta, instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Exhibit-P3 and quash the same.

(b) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that Exhibit-P1 complaint is not maintainable before the Lok Ayukta.”

2. Brief facts are as under:

Pursuant to a notification dated 21.04.2008, respondent herein submitted an application for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant in the Department of Malayalam Lexicon in Kerala University. According to the petitioner, 25 applications were received for appointment. The application of the respondent was rejected for the reason that he did not possess the required technical qualification. It is stated that since there is only one candidate available possessing the required qualification against four vacancies, Syndicate has decided to re-notify the post and accordingly, a fresh notification was issued on 18.03.2010.

3. Respondent has filed Complaint No. 1337 of 2010 dated 03.08.2010 (Exhibit-P1) challenging the action of Kerala University in re-notifying the selection to the post of Technical Assistant. In the complaint, he has stated that he was one of the applicants to the post in question and he possess the prescribed qualifications for the post. His grievance is that he cannot apply to the post afresh, since he is over aged. Hence, he has sought for a recommendation to be given to the competent authority to enable him to get appointment.

4. Challenging the maintainability of Exhibit-P1 complaint, petitioner has submitted preliminary objections before the Lok Ayukta. According to them, subject matter of the complaint cannot be subjected to investigation under Section 8 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1990. The Upa Lok Ayukta considered the question of maintainability and by order dated 25.02.2011 (Exhibit-P3) held that the complaint is maintainable.

5. Relying on the decision in Kamalu vs. State of Kerala, 2000 (3) KLT 227, the petitioner has contended that a complaint involving grievance in respect of an action taken regarding appointment is excluded from the jurisdiction of Lok Ayukta as per Section 8 of the Act. Merely because, certain allegations were made against the University, that will not confer jurisdiction on Lok Ayukta, in matters relating to appointment.

6. Opposing the above contentions, respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending, inter alia, that he is a post graduate in Malayalam Language and Literature [M.A.] has a Post Graduate Diploma in Journalism and also passed State Eligibility Test. Further, he was employed in Cultural and Lexicographical Research Institute under Dr. B.C. Balakrishnan from 10.6.1993 to 8.10.1998 as Editorial Assistant in the Research Wing of the said Institute vide certificate issued by Dr. B.C. Balakrishnan, Director of the said Institute dated 14.10.1998 [Exhibit-R(a)]. He has further contended that pursuant to notification dated 21.04.2008 published by Kerala University, applications were invited to the post of Technical Assistant with four vacancies, in respect of persons aged less than 40, who had the following qualifications viz. M.A. in a related language or equivalent oriental, a minimum three years' experience in Lexicon work. Since he had the required qualification, he applied to the post. At the time of submission of the application, he was aged 39. Even as per the notification, the maximum age within which an application could be made was 40.

7. The respondent has further contended that, he was not called for the interview based on his application and no effective steps were