Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8728
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DPI OFFICE, JAGATHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – Appellant
Versus
ANAGHA K. – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 405 OF 2018 | WP(C) NO. 91 OF 2018 | WP(C) NO. 418 OF 2018 | WP(C) NO. 552 OF 2018 | WP(C) NO. 583 OF 2018 | WP(C) NO. 595 OF 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Tekchand
For the Respondents: K.B.PRADEEP, ARUN THOMAS, JENNIS STEPHEN, KARTHIKA MARIA, MARIA ROY, SANATHOSH MATHEW, R.SUJA, VIJAY V. PAUL, VEENA RAVEENDRAN, JAMSHEED HAFIZ, T.S.SREEKUTTY
Lok Ayukta cannot issue binding interim orders without jurisdiction; internal discipline in educational events must be respected.
Headnote:(A) Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 - Sections 2(b), 2(h), 7(1), 12 - Jurisdiction of Lok Ayukta - Legality of interim orders granting participation in youth festival questioned - Such orders exceed the powers conferred under the Act, lack jurisdiction since no grievance of maladministration is substantiated - The participation criteria must be adhered to and cannot be diluted through interim directions (Paras 1-20).
(B) Judicial Precedents - The court emphasizes that educational authorities have discretion in internal assessments, supported by past judgments ruling that performance assessments cannot be challenged in these proceedings. Findings signify the court’s stance against bypassing proper legal channels for grievances about assessments (Paras 5-7, 9-10).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of interim orders regarding participation in youth festival. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contentions on grievance existence and lok ayukta's powers. (Para 4 , 10) |
| 3. definition of maladministration and jurisdiction limitations. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. justification of appeal process and non-discriminatory practices in assessments. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. emphasis on educativo authorities' discretion and court's role. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. final dismissal of writ petitions. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT
S. Manikumar, C. J.
In all these writ petitions, interim orders passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta in various complaints are challenged.
2. For brevity, it is suffice to extract one such order made in I. A. No. 2236 of 2017 in complaint No. 1468 of 2016, impugned in W. P. (C) No. 405 of 2018, as hereunder:-
“Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, respondent no. 3 is directed to permit the petitioner / complainant to participate in the item “Padyam Chollal – Tamil – HSS General” at the Kerala State School Kalolsavam 2017-18 scheduled to be held from 6.1.2018 at Thrissur provisionally and subject to further orders that may be passed in the complaint.”
3. Being aggrieved by the orders stated supra, instant writ petitions are filed on the grounds inter alia that as per Section 7 (1) of the Act, Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta, may investigate any action in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or allegation is made in respect of such actions.
4. As per Section 2 (h) of the Act, "grievance" means a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequences of maladministration.
5. As per Section 2 (b) of the Act, "allegation" means that a public servant has abused his position to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to cause undue harm or hardship, that the public servant was actuated by personal interest or improper or corrupt motives or that the public servant was guilty of corruption for favoritism, nepotism or lack of integrity.
6. As per Section 2 (k) of the Act, "maladministration" means action taken or purporting to have been taken in exercise of administrative function in any case where such action or the administrative procedure was unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory or that there was willful negligence or undue delay in taking such action.
7. Ext. P1 complaint does not reveal any grievance in consequence of maladministration, any maladministration of any sought by any administrative functionary or any allegation with regard to any public servant. In the said circumstances, neither the Lok Ayukta nor the Upa Lok Ayukta had any jurisdiction to entertain Ext. P1 complaint.
8. Petitioners have further contended that the Lok Ayukta, in terms of Section 12 of the Act, can only make recommendations to the concerned authorities and cannot make positive directions. It has been repeatedly laid down by this Court by way of judicial precedents that the Lok Ayukta could not issue positive directions.
9. It is trite law that no interim relief can be granted if there is no power to grant such final reliefs. In the said circumstances, Ext. P2 order dated 19.12.2017 impugned in W. P. (C) No. 405 of 2018, whereby a positive direction is issued to the writ petitioners to permit the 1st respondent in the writ petition, to take part in the School Youth Festival, is totally unsustainable in law.
10. Petitioners have also contended that even if it is deemed for argument's sake that there is "maladministration" as defined under the Act (not admitted), as per Section 12 (1) of the Act, the Upa Lok Ayukta can only forward a report to the concerned authority, which report is not also of binding nature. In the said circumstances, the Upa Lok Ayukta exceeded in jurisdiction conferred as per the Act in passing a binding interim order in the nature of Ext. P2.
11. Petitioners have submitted that as revealed from Ext. P1 complaint, the 1st respondent is aggri
