M K RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in these writ petitions, except the last mentioned, is against an order passed by the Kerala Upa Lok Ayukta, on a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent in WP (C) No. 32034/08, a former member of the Senate of the Kerala University, alleging that selection to the post of Assistant Grade II in the Kerala University was vitiated by serious irregularities in the conduct of the selection and favouritism and nepotism indulged in by original respondents 1 and 2 in the matter of selecting the candidates, who were ultimately appointed. The complaint was treated as an 'allegation' within the meaning of S.2(b) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The complaint originally listed only the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University as respondents 1 and 2. The Pro-Vice Chancellor was impleaded suo motu by the Upa Lok Ayukta, at one point of time and two persons, petitions 1 and 2 in WP (C) No. 298/09 were impleaded as respondents 4 and 5, in a representative capacity. The complainant was directed to take out notice of the complaint by paper publication. The 3rd respondent in WP (C) No. 298/09, a Section Officer, working in the University got himself impleaded in the proceedings before the Upa Lok Ayukta. The University of Kerala was, at one point of time, impleaded as a respondent, but was later deleted from the party array. Four members of the Syndicate were impleaded as respondents 10 to 13, essentially on the ground that they were members of the selection committee. One of the candidates, who appeared in the selection, but who was unsuccessful and who in turn, had challenged the entire selection process conducted by the University in WP (C) No. 37082/07, got herself impleaded as additional 8th respondent in the proceedings before the Upa Lok Ayukta. Certain among the contesting respondents filed counter affidavits at different stages of the proceedings. The maintainability of the complaint was raised as a preliminary issue by respondents 10 to 13, and it was directed to be considered by the Upa Lok Ayukta. The University had raised the question of jurisdiction before the Upa Lok Ayukta. The petitioners in WP (C) No. 35426/08, who were not eonominee parties before the Upa Lok Ayukta, had approached this Court earlier challenging the action taken by the Upa Lok Ayukta in impleading two among the selected candidates, petitioners 1 and 2 in WP (C) No. 298/09, in a representative capacity competent to represent the other candidates in the proceedings before the Upa Lok Ayukta. Their challenge was, to a considerable extent, accepted by this Court. The Upa Lok Ayukta proceeded to draw up a report under S.12(3) of the Act, inter alia, recommending that appropriate legal proceedings be initiated against respondents 1, 3 and additional respondents 10 to 13 as they are guilty of favouritism, nepotism and political patronage in the selection conducted to determine the suitability of the candidates as Assistant Grade II in the University. There was a further recommendation that the rank list in question and all appointments made in accordance with the rank list be set aside and the Vice Chancellor of the University should constitute a new selection board including all the members of the present selection committee and conduct a fresh test for all candidates who applied, without insisting on a fresh application.

(3.) The University has challenged the order passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta in WP (C) No. 35279/08. The Vice Chancellor has challenged the same in WP (C) No. 33916/08. The Pro-Vice Chancellor has instituted WP (C) No. 32034/08. Persons who were impleaded in a representative capacity and the Section Officer of the University has come up in WP (C) No. 298/09. Five among the selected candidates, who are not parties before the Lok Ayukta have approached this Court in WP (C) No. 35426/08.