Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7286
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DPI OFFICE, JAGATHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AND THE GENERAL CONVENER, KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM, 2017-18, THRISSUR – 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: Arun Thomas, K.B. Pradeep, Jennis Stephen, Karthika Maria, Maria Roy, Santhosh Mathew, R. Suja, Vijay V. Paul, Veena Raveendran, K.B. Pradeep, Jamsheed Hafiz, T.S. Sreekutty
The Lok Ayukta lacks jurisdiction to grant positive directions in education-related complaints without statutory backing; internal school assessments must uphold strict regulatory standards.
Headnote:(A) The Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 - Section 7 - Jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta to entertain complaints regarding maladministration - The Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta cannot issue positive directions unless mandated by the act. (Paras 3-8)
(B) Writ jurisdiction in educational matters - Judicial discretion should be exercised carefully in matters involving internal regulations, promotion of discipline, and merit assessment among students. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenge interim orders from the Upa Lok Ayukta permitting participation in the Kerala State School Kalolsavam, arguing jurisdictional limitations and appropriateness of relief asked. The complaints do not reflect grievances warranting Lok Ayukta’s intervention.
Findings of Court:
The Lok Ayukta has limited authority and cannot grant positive directions beyond its statutory powers, undermining the assessment criteria set for student participation.
Issues: The central issue concerns the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta regarding complaints on educational assessments and the nature of interim directives.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that, without jurisdiction and allegations of maladministration, the Lok Ayukta's interim orders are invalid; the participation of students requires adherence to standardized regulations ensuring fairness in assessments.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of interim orders by upa lok ayukta (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. definition of grievance and applicable jurisdiction under the lok ayukta act (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. limits on lok ayukta's authority to issue directives (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. reflection on assessment fairness and internal discipline in educational contexts (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. conclusion on merits and procedural dismissal of petitions (Para 18 , 19 , 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 aggrieved by the order in appeal preferred by her. According to the 1st respondent, there was no va
