Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 603 (KER)

University of Kerala v. Krishna Priya S.

2020-07-15

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

body2020
ORDER : Bechu Kurian Thomas, J. 1. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext. P3 order dated. 6.2.2012 passed by the Lok Ayukta in Complaint No. 1702 of 2011. As per the said order, the Lok Ayukta after finding that there was maladministration on the part of the University, came to the conclusion that complainant had sustained injustice and hardships and accordingly directed a fresh viva voce examination to be conducted for the complainant for B. Tech S8 examination. The Lok Ayukta had also issued certain specific directions regarding the manner in which the examination ought to be conducted and markings awarded. 2. The 1st respondent had moved the Lok Ayukta challenging the marks awarded to her in viva voce examination of B. Tech course in Electrical and Electronics Engineering of the Kerala University. After elaborate consideration, the Lok Ayukta came to the conclusion that the marks awarded to the complainant for the viva voce examination held in April, 2011 for the 8 semester should be cancelled and issued the directions as aforementioned. 3. At the time of admission, this Court stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the order of the Lok Ayukta on the basis of the submission of the writ petitioners that the 1 respondent, who was the complainant before the Lok Ayukta, had passed the subsequent examination. 4. I heard Sri. Thomas Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala University as well as Sri. Tony George Kannanthanam, learned counsel for the 2 respondent. There is no appearance for the 1 respondent. 5. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that Ext. P3 order is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. It was pointed out that a Tribunal, a quasi judicial authority or even a Court of law, ought not to have interfered with the markings granted by an academic body especially one like a University, unless it was proven beyond doubt that, the markings/assessments were done with oblique motives. Since the 1 respondent did not have any allegation regarding oblique motives, interference by the Lok Ayukta was uncalled for. It was also submitted that at any rate, the direction to conduct fresh viva voce examination was issued without noting the fact that the complainant had appeared for the subsequent examination held during October-November, 2011 for S8 and she had even cleared the subjects, thereby rendering Ext. P3 order of the Lok Ayukta redundant. 6. It was also submitted that at any rate, the direction to conduct fresh viva voce examination was issued without noting the fact that the complainant had appeared for the subsequent examination held during October-November, 2011 for S8 and she had even cleared the subjects, thereby rendering Ext. P3 order of the Lok Ayukta redundant. 6. 1st respondent had cleared the B. Tech examination in October-November, 2011, itself, which was much before Ext. P3 order of the Lok Ayukta. Conduct of a further examination will not be conducive to the 1 respondent herself. Since the 1 respondent had cleared the B. Tech final examination in October- November, 2011, there was no reason for her grievance to continue even as on the date of passing of Ext. P3 order. As the direction of the Lok Ayukta in Ext. P3 was only to conduct a fresh viva voce examination, which had, in fact, been conducted even before Ext. P3 order was issued. Ext. P3 is a superfluous order non-representation for the 1 respondent before this Court, could perhaps be a reflection of the above. 7. Ext. P3 order passed by the Lok Ayukta is certainly unnecessary in the peculiar facts of the case. The direction to conduct fresh examination by the Lok Ayukta was not required as the same was nothing but superfluous, especially when recommendations were not issued. As held in Sudha Devi v. District Collector 2017 (2) KLT 1127 ), Lok Ayukta can only make a report to the authority concerned with recommendation. It cannot issue positive directions. Lok Ayukta also does not have the power to adjudicate or give directions other than to recommend as held in State of Kerala v. Bernard, 2002 (3) KLT 254 ). 8. In the instant case, the Lok Ayukta has issued positive directions which are even peremptory in nature. The direction cancelling the viva voce examination already conducted and the direction to conduct a fresh viva voce exam are all in the nature of positive directions that are peremptory. It is certainly beyond the jurisdiction and authority of the Lok Ayukta to issue such orders.' 9. The order impugned is issued apparently after a process of adjudication which also make the order as one without jurisdiction. It is certainly beyond the jurisdiction and authority of the Lok Ayukta to issue such orders.' 9. The order impugned is issued apparently after a process of adjudication which also make the order as one without jurisdiction. The statute has purposely avoided to confer a power of adjudication upon the Lok Ayukta and hence, the Lok Ayukta ought not have adjudicated the issue raised before it. For the aforesaid reasons, Ext. P3 is unsustainable and the same is quashed. The writ petition is allowed as above.