IMPORTANT POINT
Chairman or Manager or Secretary or Correspondent, having control over the administration of the educational institutions, under the circumstances stated supra, as public servants, amenable to the jurisdiction of Lok Ayukta or Upa-Lok Ayukta, there is an exclusion in the Statute, as regards teachers working in such educational institutions to fall within the definition of “public servant”. From the statutory provisions, we can derive that Legislature does not include a teacher of an aided educational institution, as a pubic servant.

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar,

Challenging Exhibit-P5 order of the Lok Ayukta dated 10.03.2011 passed in Complaint No.1381/2009 filed by the 1st respondent, instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

(i) To declare that the Lok Ayukta is incompetent to pass Exhibit-P5 order, since the petitioner is not a public servant, as defined under Section 2(o) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 and issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit-P5, and quash the same;

(ii) To declare that Lok Ayukta has no power to direct University of Kerala, to grant the average of the highest and lowest marks obtained in three valuations to the petitioner, in view of the specific clause in the Manual of Valuations issued by the University, which specifies that more than one valuation is made, the candidate shall be entitled only to the average of nearest two marks;

2. Facts leading to the filing of instant writ petition are that, petitioner is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Mathematics, St. John's College, Anchal, a Government-aided Private College. After completion of his post graduation, he obtained Ph.D in Faculty of Technology from Cochin University of Science and Technology. Later, he got selected by Monash University, Melbourne, Australia and Postech, Pohang, South Korea, as a Post-doctoral Research Fellow. He is also a recipient of the UGC Research Fellowship in Mathematics. From the year 1997 onwards, he has been entrusted with the valuation of M.Sc Mathematics answer papers.

3. Petitioner has further stated that in 2009, he was entrusted with the valuation of M.Sc Linear Algebra papers by University of Kerala. In the valuation, the 1st respondent was awarded with 3 marks. The papers were entrusted for valuation after removing the original facing sheet and with false numbers, so that the identity of the student would not be known at the time of valuation. At the time of 2nd valuation, the 1st respondent obtained 31 marks. Since the difference was more than ten marks, the University, as stipulated under the rules, had the paper valued by a third examiner in which the 1st respondent obtained 12 marks. Hence, the average between the two nearest marks was taken as the marks of the 1st respondent in the said paper and the results were announced, wherein the 1st respondent was declared failed.

4. Being aggrieved by the above, the 1st respondent filed Complaint No.1223 of 2019 before the Kerala Lok Ayukta, praying for issuance of an order to scrutinize the answer paper. Later, she filed another complaint bearing No. 1381/2009 stating that on the basis of the order in the earlier complaint, she got the opportunity to verify her papers. In the said complaint, she has sought for a direction to call for her papers and have it examined by a different examiner.

5. In the above said complaint, the petitioner herein was served with a notice asking him to appear on 23.06.2020. On appearance, he came to understand that Lok Ayukta had earlier passed an order dated 27.01.2010 directing the University to provide the average of 3 and 31, the highest and lowest marks to the 1st respondent, which, according to the petitioner, is a procedure not contemplated under the rules. Hence, the University filed I.A. No.183/2020 to review the said order. However, the interlocutory application was dismissed on the ground that the order was passed on the submission of the learned standing counsel for the University, as evident from Exhibit-P1.

6. Going through Exhibit-P1 complaint, the prayer is to have the paper valued by a different examiner. Later, it seems that the 1st respondent has filed a petition stating that one examiner had given her 31 marks which, according to her, is the correct valuation and sought for the court's intervention to enable her to get that mark.

7. The petitioner was impleaded as the 3rd respondent in the complaint, vide order dated 10.05.2010. He filed a detailed written statement (Ex