This batch of writ petitions relate to the selection process initiated by the Kerala University, hereinafter referred to as 'the University', for short, for appointment to the post of Light Duty Vehicle Driver, as per notification dated 7/2/2006. They are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Among these writ petitions, W.P.(C) No.13553 of 2012 needs to be considered first.
3. The second respondent in W.P.(C) No.13553 of 2012 had approached the Kerala Lok Ayukta, alleging that there is contumacious inaction on the part of the University in finalising the selection process initiated pursuant to the notification dated 7/2/2005, which is Ext.P5 in this writ petition, for appointment to the post of Light Duty Vehicle Driver. Ext.P1 is the complaint preferred by the second respondent before the Lok Ayukta. The substance of the complaint is that there are 11 vacancies of Light Duty Vehicle Driver in the University and that though a short list was published pursuant to Ext.P5 notification, appointments are not being made and the University is engaging drivers on daily wage basis in the said vacancies. In the statement filed by the University before the Lok Ayukta, the stand taken was that the University is not able to find out an external agency for conducting the practical test for completing the selection process. The Lok Ayukta, on a consideration of the materials placed before it, came to the conclusion that the explanation offered by the University for not finalising the selection process is not satisfactory and consequently, directed the University to make appointments, after conducting the practical test within two months. Ext.P2 is the order issued by the Lok Ayukta in this connection. The University has not complied with the direction issued by the Lok Ayukta in Ext.P2 order. Instead, it filed a statement seeking six months time to comply with the direction contained in Ext.P2. The Lok Ayuktha rejected the request of the University for time for compliance of the direction in Ext.P2 order.
4. Ext.P2 order and the order declining time for compliance of the directions contained therein were challenged by the University before this Court in W.P.(C) No.29180 of 2010. In the said writ petition, among others, it was also contended that Ext.P2 order was issued without jurisdiction, for, the Lok Ayukta is not empowered to issue an enforceable order in the nature of Ext.P2 in a case like this and that the Lok Ayukta could have only sent a report to the Government on the complaint of the second respondent. This Court dismissed the writ petition, as per Ext.P3 judgment, holding that Ext.P2 order was accepted by the University by filing an application seeking time for compliance and therefore, the University is not entitled to challenge the same. It was also held by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment that no sustainable reason was shown by the University for seeking time for compliance of the direction in Ext.P2.
5. After Ext.P3 judgment, the University conducted the practical test of the short listed candidates between 11.11.2010 to 19.11.2010. Thereafter, it appears, the Syndicate of the University cancelled the selection process initiated pursuant to Ext. P5 notification and decided to conduct a fresh selection for appointment to the post covered by the notification on the ground that various irregularities were noticed in the earlier selection. When the Syndicate of the University decided to conduct a fresh selection, the Lok Ayukta stayed the fresh selection, as per Ext.P7 order. Later, the second respondent filed an application seeking orders to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the petitioner, who was the Registrar of the University, for non-compliance of the direction contained in Ext. P2 order and Ext.P8 order was issued on 4.6.2012 in the said application, directing the petitioner to appear before the Lok Ayukta and show cause why action should not be initiated against him under the Contempt of Courts Act. W.P.(C) No.13553 of 2012 is filed, in the circumstances, seeking orders declaring that Section 19 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act 1999, by which the Lok Ayukta is conferred with the power and authority to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, as unconstitutional and also for a declaration that Ext.P2 order is one issued without jurisdiction.
6. It is seen that after the Lok Ayukta issued Ext.P8 notice, on 16.6.2012, W.A.No.1115 of 2012 was filed by the University before this Court, challenging Ext.P3 order. In the said writ appeal, this Court found that the findings rendered in Ext.P3 judgment are justified and that there are no reasons to interfere with the said findings. However, having regard to the subsequent developments, this Court disposed of W.A.No.1115 of 2012 as per Ext.R2(a) judgment, directing the University to bring the subsequent developments before the Lok Ayukta in the contempt proceedings pending before it. Paragraph 4 of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1115 of 2012 which is relevant in this context reads thus :
“4. We fail to understand why these factual situations and legitimate deficits, if any, were not brought on record before the Lok Ayukta. It is open to the petitioner/ appellant to bring all these facts in the Contempt proceedings before Lok Ayukta and seek for indulgence of Lok Ayukta regarding the inordinate delay, if any, on the part of the appellant authority. So far as Exts.P4 and P6, which were under challenge before the learned Single Judge, observations of the learned Single Judge are justified and we find no ground to interfere with the said observations. With these reasons/observations, the appeal is disposed of. All contentions are left open to be raised before Lok Ayukta.”
7. Though Section 19 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 is challenged in the writ petition as unconstitutional, at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press for that relief. Instead, the learned counsel contended, relying on the decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Bernard (2002(3) KLT 254) that the power under Section 19 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act is available to the Lok Ayukta only to enforce an order passed under Section 14 of the said Act and Ext.P2 order being not one passed under Section 14 of the Act, proceedings could not have been initiated against the petitioner under the Contempt of Courts Act. He has also contended, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (AIR 1954 SC 340) that Ext.P2 order being one passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and the same cannot, therefore, be enforced invoking the contempt of court jurisdiction conferred on the Lok Ayukta under Section 19 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended, relying on the decision in University of Kerala v. Parvathy Krishna (2014(2) KLT 233) that Ext.P2 being a decision rendered in ignorance of the provisions contained in the Lok Ayukta Act, the same is made `per incuriam' and liable to be ignored and contempt of court proceedings cannot be initiated to enforce such an order.
8. Ext.P8 is the order issued by the Lok Ayukta in the application filed by the second respondent to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the petitioner. Ext.P8 only directs the petitioner to appear before the Lok ayukta and show cause why action should not be taken against him under the Contempt of Courts Act. The petitioner has not appeared before the Lok Ayukta and shown cause why action under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated against him. Instead, he approached this Court, challenging Section 19 of the Lok Ayukta Act. In my view, the petitioner is not entitled to approach this Court seeking the relief aforesaid, without approaching the Lok Ayukta and raising the contention as to the maintainability of the Contempt of Court proceedings initiated by the Lok Ayukta. The contention of the petitioner that the power of the Lok Ayukta under Section 19 of the Lok Ayukta Act can be exercised only to enforce an order passed under Section 14 of the said Act and Ext.P2 being not one passed under Section 14 of the Act, proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be initiated for non-compliance of Ext.P2 order, is a contention which should have been raised at the first instance before the Lok Ayukta itself. The petitioner having not approached the Lok Ayukta and shown cause why action under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated against him, this writ petition at his instance is premature, for, it is filed on the assumption that the Lok Ayukta would not accept the argument as to the maintainability of the contempt of court proceedings raised in the writ petition.
9. With regard to the collateral challenge raised against Ext.P2 order on the grounds that the same is a nullity and that the same is a decision rendered 'per incuriam', I must state that Ext.P2 was challenged by the University before this Court in W.P.(C) No.29180 of 2010 on various grounds, including the ground that the same is an order passed without jurisdiction and the challenge was repelled by this Court, as per Ext.P3 judgment and the said judgment has been confirmed by the Division Bench. Petitioner is only an officer of the University and proceedings were initiated against him by the Lok Ayukta only in his capacity as the officer of the University, who is responsible for implementing Ext.P2 order issued by the Lok Ayukta. Petitioner is not personally aggrieved by Ext.P2 order of the Lok Ayukta. As such, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge Ext.P2 order on any grounds, whatsoever, directly or collaterally, especially when the challenge against the said order at the instance of the University had already been repelled by this court. W.P.(C) No.13553 of 2012, in the circumstances, is liable to be dismissed and I do so.
10. W.P.(C) No.12686 of 2012 is filed by a candidate who has applied for selection pursuant to the notification dated 7/2/2006. He challenges the decision of the University in cancelling the selection process commenced pursuant to the said notification. W.P.(C) No.12696 of 2012 is also filed by a candidate who has applied for selection pursuant to the said notification. In the light of the decision of this Court in W.A.No.1115 of 2012 and the decision taken by me in W.P.
(C) No.13553 of 2012, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to challenge the decision of the University cancelling the selection, after the disposal of the Contempt of Court proceedings pending before the Lok Ayukta.
11. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11617 of 2012 is another candidate who has applied for selection pursuant to the notification dated 7/2/2006. He seeks directions to the University to conclude the selection process pursuant to the said notification. In the light of the decision of this Court in W.A.No.1115 of 2012 and the decision taken by me in W.P.(C) No.13553 of 2012, this writ petition is also dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, if required, after the conclusion of the Contempt of Court proceedings pending before the Lok Ayukta.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
tgs (true copy)