SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD 
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, DONADI RAMESH,J.
Arvind Kumar Singh – Appellant 
versus
Lok Ayukta Uttar Paradesh And 3 Others – Respondent 
WRIT - C No. - 39442 of 2024 
Decided on : 06-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Namit Srivastava, Parul Srivastava
For the Respondent: C.S.C.,Manas Bhargava

The Lokayukta lacks jurisdiction to investigate complaints regarding public servant appointments, which are excluded under the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1975.

Headnote:

(A) Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up Lokayukta Act, 1975 - Sections 2(b), 2(d), and 8(1)(b)(i) - Writ petition for mandamus to decide complaint regarding appointment of public servant - Jurisdiction of Up Lokayukta to investigate such complaints is limited and does not extend to appointments or service conditions as outlined in the Third Schedule - Petitioner's claim of illegal appointment is outside the Lokayukta's jurisdiction. (Paras 5-12)

(B) Jurisdiction of Lokayukta - The Lokayukta cannot investigate complaints regarding appointments of public servants, which are regulated by separate statutory provisions. (Paras 10-11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the Lokayukta to decide a complaint about the alleged illegal appointment of a Senior Assistant, which was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the Lokayukta lacks jurisdiction to entertain complaints regarding public servant appointments, as these are not within the scope defined by the Act.

Issues: Whether the Lokayukta has jurisdiction to investigate complaints regarding the appointment of government servants.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Lokayukta's jurisdiction is limited to allegations of corruption and maladministration, excluding matters related to appointments as specified in the Third Schedule.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri ManasBhargava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to decide petitioner's complaint dated 29.5.2023, by passing a reasoned speaking order. The first respondent in this case is the Lokayukta, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The complaint dated 29.5.2023, is in respect of appointment offered to the private respondent as Senior Assistant in the ofÏce of Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bareillly. According to petitioner the appointment has been obtained illegally.

3. While entertaining the writ petition doubts were expressed with regard to entertainability of a claim of this kind before the Up Lokayukta and to conduct investigation in this regard.

Following orders were passed in the matter on 27.2.2025:-

"Heard Sri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manas Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent no.1.

We adjourn the matter for the day in order to enable learned counsel for the petitioner to apprise the Court on the aspect relating jurisdiction of Up-Lok Ayukta to conduct investigation in a case where the appointment of a government servant is challenged.

Repeat as fresh on its turn."

4. Instructions have been obtained by Sri Manas Bhargava, who has placed statutory scheme, according to which, the complaint of the present kind wherein the appointment of a government servant is challenged would not be maintainable before the Up Lokayukta.

5. In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be worth noticing that Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up Lokayukta Act, 1975, has been enacted by the State to make provision for the appointment and functions of certain authorities for the investigation of grievances and allegations against ministers, legislators and other public servants in certain cases and for matters connected therewith. Section 2 of the Act of 1975 contains the definition clause. Sub-section (b) of Section 2 as well as sub-section (d) of Section 2 defines 'allegations' and 'grievances', which are reproduced hereinafter:-

"(b) "allegation" in relation to a public servant, mean- any affirmation that such public servant— has abused his position as such to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person, was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by personal interest or improper or corrupt motive, or is guilty of corruption, or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant; (d) "grievance" means a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration."

6. Section 8 provides for matters, which are not subject to investigation by the Lokayukta or Up Lokayukta. Our attention has been invited under Section 8(1)(b)(i), which is reproduced hereinafter:-

"8(1)(b) in the case of a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action,--

(i) if such action relates to any- matter specified in the Third Schedule;

(ii) if the complainant has or had any remedy by way of proceeding before any Tribunal or Court of law:

Provided that nothing in sub-clause (ii) shall prevent the Lokayukta or an Up- Lokayukta from conducting an investigation if he is satisfied that such person could not or cannot, for sufficient cause, have recourse to a remedy referred to in that sub-clause."

7. Pursuant to above provision, Third Schedule has been framed, in which Clause (d) relates to the appointment and is reproduced hereinafter:-

"(d) Action taken in respect of appointments, removals, pay, discipline, superannuation or other matters relating to conditions of service of public servants but not including action relating to claims, for pension, gratuity, provident fund or to any claims which arise on retirement, removal or termination of service."

8. From the statutory scheme contained i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top