UNIVERSITY OF KERALA Vs. K.P.SATHEESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the writ petitioner, University of Kerala, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 03.12.2019 in W.P.(C) No. 11043 of 2010 upholding the order passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta dated 18.12.2009 in Complaint No 286/2009 filed by the first respondent, Dr. K.P. Satheesan, presently a Senior Advocate practising in the High Court of Kerala, complaining that the University of Kerala has failed to pay the bills towards his professional fees, on account of his appearance for one Dr. V. Jayaprakash, who was the then Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University of Kerala.

(2.) Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows: Dr. K.P. Satheesan filed complaint No. 286 of 2009 before the Upa Lok Ayukta stating that he was appearing for the second respondent ie., Dr. V. Jayaprakash, the then Pro-Vice Chancellor of the Kerala University in complaint No. 572 of 2008 filed by one Sujith S.S alleging wide spread corruption and undue favoritism in the matter of selection to the post of Assistant Grade-II in the University of Kerala. In the complaint, Dr. M.K. Ramachandran Nair, then Vice Chancellor of the University of Kerala and Prof. K.A. Hashim, Registrar of University of Kerala alone were made parties and they were represented in the proceedings apparently by the Standing Counsel for the University of Kerala, Adv. Konchira G. Neelakandan Nair. However, when the matter came up for consideration before Upa Lok Ayukta on 13.06.2008, the Upa Lok Ayukta found that the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University was in charge of the selection and it was thereupon that Dr. V. Jayaprakash was suo motu impleaded as additional third respondent in the proceedings. According to Dr. K.P. Satheesan, on request made by Dr. V. Jayaprakash, he entered appearance before the Upa Lokayukta on 13.06.2008 and filed vakalath and thereafter, he was appearing for Dr. V. Jayaprakash before the Upa Lok Ayukta. While so, when the matter was posted before the Upa Lok Ayukta on 18.07.2008, Upa Lok Ayukta found that the University of Kerala is a necessary party and accordingly impleaded the University of Kerala. On 22.07.2008, Upa Lok Ayukta found that the selection to the post of Assistant Grade-II, was conducted by a Selection Board consisting of the then Vice Chancellor, M.K. Ramachandran Nair as Chairman, other members of the Syndicate and Dr. A.A. Hashim, Registrar of the University and thereupon, the members of the Selection Board were suo moto impleaded as additional respondents. Circumstances being so, in the meeting of the Syndicate held on 24.07.2008, among other agenda items, a special item was included and resolved to appoint Adv. V.K. Radhakrishnan Nair to appear for and on behalf of the Vice Chancellor on and with effect from 21.07.2008. The above stated aspects are evident from Annexures A4 to A7 documents produced by the University along with I.A. No. 3 of 2020 in the captioned writ appeal.

(3.) Anyhow, it is an undisputed fact that Dr. K.P. Satheesan was appearing for and on behalf of the Pro-Vice Chancellor, Dr. V. Jayapraksh and apparently he raised a bill on 18.07.2008 before the University of Kerala for an amount of Rs.25,000/- and another bill of Rs.80,000/- on 27.11.2008, towards the professional charges and other expenses. The bill was not paid by the University and it was thereupon that Dr. K.P. Satheesan approached Lok Ayukta by filing the above specified complaint alleging maladministration;. The Upa Lok Ayukta, after taking into consideration the submission made by Dr. K.P. Satheesan as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the University of Kerala, the Vice Chancellor, Registrar and the Pro Vice Chancellor who were parties to the proceedings, has found that the University is liable to pay the fee claimed by Dr. K.P. Satheesan and accordingly, directed to pay it within one month, and file an action taken report on 03.02.2010. Even though the University has contended in the said proceedings that there was no privity of contract between the University and Dr. K.P. Satheesan, that was not acceptable to the Upa Lok Ayukta. It was being aggrieved by the said order of the Lok Ayukta, the writ petition was preferred. On a consideration of the rival submissions, learned Single Judge has found that the issue in question, based on facts and laws were considered by the Upa Lok Ayukta, and it was accordingly that the University was directed to pay the professional fees and expenses of Dr. K.P. Satheesan, and therefore, there was no reason for interfering with the order passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta. The main thrust of the contention advanced by the University in the appeal is that the engagement of the first respondent by Dr. V. Jayaprakash was in his personal capacity and the University had not approved such engagement and had, in fact, rejected the claim raised by the petitioner for such engagement. It is also contended that the Lok Ayukta is a statutory body, which is bound to constrain itself within the ambit of the powers granted under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, and orders in the nature of a writ of mandamus cannot be issued by the Lok Ayukta as is done in the instant case. Therefore, it is submitted that the order of the Lok Ayukta is void in law and the same is issued in excess of the jurisdiction conferred on the Lok Ayuka under the Act. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge was not correct in finding that Dr. K.P. Satheesan had been engaged by the Registrar of the University, which is evident from Ext.P3 written statement filed before the Upa Loka Ayukta that the second respondent had engaged the first respondent in his personal capacity and that there had not been any decision on the part of the University to engage him.