Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 876 (KER)

K. Satish Kumar v. Juhunu N. R.

2020-10-20

S.MANIKUMAR, SHAJI P.CHALY

body2020
JUDGMENT : S. Manikumar, Challenging Exhibit-P5 order of the Lok Ayukta dated 10.03.2011 passed in Complaint No.1381/2009 filed by the 1st respondent, instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: (i) To declare that the Lok Ayukta is incompetent to pass Exhibit-P5 order, since the petitioner is not a public servant, as defined under Section 2(o) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 and issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit-P5, and quash the same; (ii) To declare that Lok Ayukta has no power to direct University of Kerala, to grant the average of the highest and lowest marks obtained in three valuations to the petitioner, in view of the specific clause in the Manual of Valuations issued by the University, which specifies that more than one valuation is made, the candidate shall be entitled only to the average of nearest two marks; 2. Facts leading to the filing of instant writ petition are that, petitioner is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Mathematics, St. John's College, Anchal, a Government-aided Private College. After completion of his post graduation, he obtained Ph.D in Faculty of Technology from Cochin University of Science and Technology. Later, he got selected by Monash University, Melbourne, Australia and Postech, Pohang, South Korea, as a Post-doctoral Research Fellow. He is also a recipient of the UGC Research Fellowship in Mathematics. From the year 1997 onwards, he has been entrusted with the valuation of M.Sc Mathematics answer papers. 3. Petitioner has further stated that in 2009, he was entrusted with the valuation of M.Sc Linear Algebra papers by University of Kerala. In the valuation, the 1st respondent was awarded with 3 marks. The papers were entrusted for valuation after removing the original facing sheet and with false numbers, so that the identity of the student would not be known at the time of valuation. At the time of 2nd valuation, the 1st respondent obtained 31 marks. Since the difference was more than ten marks, the University, as stipulated under the rules, had the paper valued by a third examiner in which the 1st respondent obtained 12 marks. Hence, the average between the two nearest marks was taken as the marks of the 1st respondent in the said paper and the results were announced, wherein the 1st respondent was declared failed. 4. Hence, the average between the two nearest marks was taken as the marks of the 1st respondent in the said paper and the results were announced, wherein the 1st respondent was declared failed. 4. Being aggrieved by the above, the 1st respondent filed Complaint No.1223 of 2019 before the Kerala Lok Ayukta, praying for issuance of an order to scrutinize the answer paper. Later, she filed another complaint bearing No. 1381/2009 stating that on the basis of the order in the earlier complaint, she got the opportunity to verify her papers. In the said complaint, she has sought for a direction to call for her papers and have it examined by a different examiner. 5. In the above said complaint, the petitioner herein was served with a notice asking him to appear on 23.06.2020. On appearance, he came to understand that Lok Ayukta had earlier passed an order dated 27.01.2010 directing the University to provide the average of 3 and 31, the highest and lowest marks to the 1st respondent, which, according to the petitioner, is a procedure not contemplated under the rules. Hence, the University filed I.A. No.183/2020 to review the said order. However, the interlocutory application was dismissed on the ground that the order was passed on the submission of the learned standing counsel for the University, as evident from Exhibit-P1. 6. Going through Exhibit-P1 complaint, the prayer is to have the paper valued by a different examiner. Later, it seems that the 1st respondent has filed a petition stating that one examiner had given her 31 marks which, according to her, is the correct valuation and sought for the court's intervention to enable her to get that mark. 7. The petitioner was impleaded as the 3rd respondent in the complaint, vide order dated 10.05.2010. He filed a detailed written statement (Exhibit-P2), enclosing a copy of the question paper and the correct answers for all the questions (Exhibit-P3). Petitioner has submitted before the Lok Ayukta that a fresh evaluation should be made under its supervision, taking into account Exhibit-P4 produced by him. However, without considering any of the said aspects, the complaint was disposed of vide order dated 10.03.2011 directing deterrent action against the petitioner finding that he has shown negligence and indifference in valuing the answer book of the 1st respondent. However, without considering any of the said aspects, the complaint was disposed of vide order dated 10.03.2011 directing deterrent action against the petitioner finding that he has shown negligence and indifference in valuing the answer book of the 1st respondent. The order was not pronounced in the open court and it was only when the University was informed, the petitioner came to know about the order. Hence, the writ petition. 8. In support of the prayers sought for, as extracted above, the petitioner has raised the following grounds: A) There is no material on record before the Lok Ayukta to enter into a finding that the petitioner is negligent or indifferent in valuing the papers. Other than the complaint of the 1st respondent, there is no complaint of incorrect valuation. Due to removal of the facing sheet and putting a false number, a valuer will not be able to identify the person who wrote the answer paper. In the instant case, he had strictly valued the paper without knowing the identity of the students. (B) No reason has been given by the Lok Ayukta, on what basis it has come to a finding that there is negligence on the part of the petitioner. The Lok Ayukta should have verified the answer sheet produced by the petitioner (Exhibit-P4) with another examiner, so that it could be ascertained whether the valuation done by him is correct or not. (C) The impugned order is vitiated with lack of jurisdiction, because Lok Ayukta is incompetent to direct action against the petitioner, who is not a public or Government servant or in the service of the University. He was working in an aided college, under a separate management and the Lok Ayukta is not having the jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints against a person not coming within the definition of Section 2 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act. (D) As per the examination manual, in respect of Post Graduate Course, the average of the nearest 2 marks obtained in the revaluation should be taken. The 1st respondent herein has obtained 3, 31, 12 marks in the three valuations, the nearest two means 3 and 12. Hence, the 1st respondent could be given only the average of 3 and 12. The 1st respondent herein has obtained 3, 31, 12 marks in the three valuations, the nearest two means 3 and 12. Hence, the 1st respondent could be given only the average of 3 and 12. But the Lok Ayukta, without considering the rules and regulations in that regard, has directed the average of 3 and 31, which are the highest and lowest marks, to be given to the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, the said direction is highly illegal and unsustainable. 9. Though the petitioner has raised the above grounds, to set aside the impugned order of the Lok Ayukta in Complaint No.1381/2009 dated 10.03.2011, inviting our attention to the preamble of the Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, Section 2(o) of the Act, which defines a public servant, and the powers and functions of the Lok Ayukta to investigate, Mr. B. S. Swathi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is not a public servant, in terms of Section 2(o) of the Act, and therefore, Lok Ayukta has erred in entertaining a complaint against him, who is not a public servant. Therefore, he prayed for quashing the impugned order. 10. Responding to the above, Mr. Thomas Abraham, learned standing counsel for the Kerala University, respondents 2 & 3, submitted that no such ground on jurisdiction was raised before the Lok Ayukta by the petitioner. However, being a question on jurisdiction, we were inclined to address the same and accordingly requested the learned standing counsel for the Kerala University to respond on the said issue. 11. On this day when the matter came up for further hearing, Mr. Thomas Abraham, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3, fairly admitted that the issue as to whether a teacher in a private college would fall within the definition of public servant, in terms of Section 2(o) of the Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 has been considered in two decisions of this Court by a learned single Judge. 12. As the challenge is narrowed down to the aspect as to whether the petitioner, a teacher in a private college, would fall within the definition of public servant, in terms of Section 2(o) of the Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, and whether amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta, we are not inclined to address on the merits of the order impugned. 13. 13. The Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 is an Act to make provision for the appointment and functions of certain authorities for making enquiries into any action (including any omission and commission in connection with or arising out of such action) relatable to matters specified in List II or List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India taken by or on behalf of the Government of Kerala or certain public authorities in the State of Kerala in certain cases and for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto. 14. Section 2(a) of the Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, defines “action” to mean that any action, including administrative action taken by way of decision, recommendation or finding or in any other manner and includes willful failure or omission to act and all other expressions relating to such action shall be construed accordingly. 15. Section 2(d) defines “allegation”, in relation to a public servant, means any affirmation that such public servant,- (i) has abused his position as such public servant to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person; (ii) was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by personal interest or improper or corrupt motives; or (iii) is guilty of corruption, favouritism, nepotism or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant; 16. Section 2(d) of the Act defines “competent authority”, in relation to public servant, to mean- (i) in the case of the Chief Minister or a Member of the State Legislature, or an office bearer of a political party, at the State level, the Governor acting in his discretion; (ii) in the case of a Minister or Secretary, the Chief Minister; (iii) in the case of an officer of the All India services, employed in connection with the affairs of the State, the Minister concerned; (iv) in the case of a Government servant, other than a Secretary, the Government of Kerala; (v) in the case of any other public servant, such authority, as may be prescribed; 17. Section 2(h) of the Act defines “grievance” to mean a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration. 18. Section 2(h) of the Act defines “grievance” to mean a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration. 18. Section 2(o) of the Act defines “public servant” means a person who is or was at any time,- (i) the Chief Minister; (ii) a Minister; (iii) a member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Kerala; (iv) a Government servant; (v) the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman (by whatever name called) or a member of a local authority in the State or a statutory body or corporation established by under any law of the State Legislature, including a co-operative society, or a Government Company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act 1 of 1956) and such other Corporations or Boards, as the Government may, having regard to its financial interest, in such Corporations or Boards, by notification from time to time, specify; (vi) a member of a Committee or Board or Authority or Corporation, statutory or non statutory, constituted by the Government of Kerala; (vii) a person in the service or pay of,- (A) a local authority in the State; (B) a statutory body or a corporation (not being a local authority) established by or under a State or a Central Act, owned or controlled by the Government of Kerala and any other Board or Corporation as the Government may, having regard to its financial interest therein, specify, by notification in the Gazette from time to time; (C) a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act 1 of 1956), in which not less than fifty-one percent of the paid up share capital is held by the Government of Kerala or any company which is a subsidiary of such company; (D) a society registered or deemed to have been registered under the Travancore Cochin literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 (XII of 1955) or the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Central Act 21 of 1860), which is subject to the control of the Government of Kerala and which is notified, in this behalf, in the Gazette; (E) a co-operative society; (F) a University; Explanation.- In this clause, "co-operative society" means cooperative society registered or deemed to have been registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (21 of 1969) and "University" means a University established by or under any law of the State of Kerala; (viii) the President, Secretary or Treasurer or any other office bearer of a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act 1926 (Central Act 16 of 1926); (ix) the Chairman or Vice-Chairman or President or Vice President or Secretary or Treasurer or any other office bearer of a political party, at the District or State level; (x) the Chairman or Manager or Secretary or Correspondent having control over the administration of a private school, whether under individual or corporate management, which receives or has received aid or grant from the Government under the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (6 of 1959), and the rules made thereunder; (xi) the Chairman or Manager or Secretary or Correspondent having control over the administration of a private college, whether under unitary or corporate management, which is affiliated to a University in the State and is governed by the Private Affiliated Colleges (Arts and Science Colleges) Staff Direct Payment of salary Rules, 1972; (xii) the Chairman or Manager or Secretary or Correspondent having control over the administration of a private college, whether under unitary or corporate management, affiliated to a University in the State and which receives aid or grant from the Government of Kerala; or (xiii) the Chairman or Manager or Secretary or Correspondent having control over the administration of a Private Engineering College or Private Polytechnic, whether under unitary or corporate management, affiliated to a University in the State or the State Board of Technical Examination., Kerala, as the case may be, and is governed by the Rules for Payment of Salaries to the Staff of the Private Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics, 1972.” 19. Section 7 of the Act speaks about matters, which may be investigated by the Lok Ayukta and the Upa-Lok Ayuktas, and the same is extracted hereunder: “7. Matters which may be investigated by the Lok Ayukta and the Upa-Lok Ayuktas.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Lok Ayukta and one of the Upa-Lok Ayuktas, as may be nominated by the Lok Ayukta for the purpose, may investigate any action which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of- (i) the Chief Minister; or (ii) a Minister; or (iii) a Member of the State Legislature; or (iv) a Secretary; or (v) an office bearer of a political party at the State Level; or (vi) an officer referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (d) of Section 2, in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such action and where there is difference of opinion between the Lok Ayukta and the Upa-Lok Ayukta as so nominated, the action shall be investigated by the Lok Ayukta and both the Upa-Lok Ayuktas together and the decision of the majority therein shall prevail. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, an Upa-Lok Ayukta may investigate any action which is taken by, or with the general or specific approval of, any public servant not being the Chief Minister or a Minister or a Member of the State Legislature or a Secretary or an office bearer of a political party at State Level or an officer referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (d) of Section 2, in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such actions or such action can be or could have been in the opinion of the Upa-Lok-Ayukta, the subject of a grievance or an allegation. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta may investigate any action taken by or with the general or specific approval of a public servant, if it is referred to him by the Government. (4) The Lok Ayukta may, by general or special order, assign to each of the Upa-Lok Ayuktas the matters which may be investigated by them under this Act. (4) The Lok Ayukta may, by general or special order, assign to each of the Upa-Lok Ayuktas the matters which may be investigated by them under this Act. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) to (4), when an Upa-Lok Ayukta is unable to discharge his functions owing to absence, illness or any other cause, his functions may be discharged by the other Upa-Lok Ayukta, and in the absence of both, by the Lok Ayukta. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, no investigation made by an Upa-Lok Ayukta under this Act and no action taken or things done by him in respect of such investigation shall be open to question on the ground only that such investigation relates to a matter which is not assigned to him by such order. (7) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the term 'Lok Ayukta' wherever it is used in this Act, in relation to any of the persons referred to in sub-section (1), shall mean the Lok Ayukta and, as the case may be, one or both of the Upa-Lok Ayuktas as provided in that sub-section.” 20. Section 8 of the Act speaks about matters not subject to investigation and it reads thus:- “8. Matters not subject to investigation.-(1) Except as hereinafter provided, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta shall not conduct any investigation under this Act, in the case of a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action, if such action relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule. Matters not subject to investigation.-(1) Except as hereinafter provided, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta shall not conduct any investigation under this Act, in the case of a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action, if such action relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule. (2) The Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta shall not investigate,- (a) any action in respect of which a formal and public inquiry has been ordered with the prior concurrence of the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta, as the case may be; (b) any action in respect of a matter which has been referred to inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Central Act 60 of 1952); (c) Any complaint involving an allegation made after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained against is alleged to have taken place: Provided that a complaint referred to in Clause (c) may be entertained by the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta, as the case may be, after the expiry of the period referred to in the said clause, if the complainant satisfies that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the period specified in that clause. (3) In the case of any complaint involving a grievance, nothing in this Act shall be construed as empowering the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta to question any administrative action involving the exercise of a discretion, except where he is satisfied that the elements involved in the exercise of the discretion are absent to such an extent that the discretion can prima-facie be regarded as having been improperly exercised.” 21. Section 9 of the Act speaks about the provisions relating to complaints and investigations, and it reads thus: “9. Provisions relating to complaints and investigations.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any person may make a complaint under this Act to the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta. (2) Every complaint shall be made in such form and in such manner, as may be prescribed, and shall be supported by an affidavit. Provisions relating to complaints and investigations.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any person may make a complaint under this Act to the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta. (2) Every complaint shall be made in such form and in such manner, as may be prescribed, and shall be supported by an affidavit. (3) Where the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta proposes, after making such preliminary inquiry as he deems fit, to conduct any investigation under this Act, he- (a) shall forward a copy of the complaint to the public servant and the competent authority concerned; (b) shall afford to such public servant, an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint; (c) may make such orders as to the safe custody of documents relevant to the investigation, as he deems fit. (4) Save as aforesaid, the procedure for conducting any such investigation shall be such, and may be held, either in public or in camera, as the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta, as the case may be considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case. (5) The Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta may, in his discretion, refuse to investigate or discontinue investigation of, any complaint involving a grievance or an allegation, if in his opinion- (a) the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith; (b) there are no sufficient grounds for investigating or, as the case may be, for continuing the investigation; or (c) other remedies are available to the complainant and in the circumstances of the case it would be more proper for the complainant to avail of such remedies. (6) In any case where the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta decides not to entertain a complaint or to discontinue any investigation in respect of a complaint he shall record his reasons therefore and communicate the same to the complainant and the public servant concerned. (7) The conduct of an investigation under this Act against a public servant in respect of any action shall not affect such action or any power or duty of any other public servant to take further action with respect to any matter subject to investigation. (7) The conduct of an investigation under this Act against a public servant in respect of any action shall not affect such action or any power or duty of any other public servant to take further action with respect to any matter subject to investigation. (8) In every proceeding before the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayyukta under this Act, the State shall be made a party thereto and the Government shall appoint a Special Attorney and one or more senior Government Pleaders to represent the Government before the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta, as the case may be on the terms and conditions prescribed: Provided that it shall not be necessary that State should be made a party in cases where Government interests are not involved.” 22. Section 12 of the Act speaks about reports of the Lok Ayukta and it reads thus: “12. Reports of Lok Ayukta etc.-(1) If, after investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint involving grievance has been made, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta is satisfied that such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or to any other person, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta shall, by a report in writing, recommend to the competent authority concerned that such injustice or hardship shall be remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time, as may be specified in the report and also intimate the complainant about its having made the report. (2) The competent authority to whom a report is sent under subsection (1) shall, within one month of the expiry of the period specified in the report, intimate or cause to be intimated, as the case may be, to the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta the action taken on the report. (3) If, after investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint involving an allegation has been made, the Lok Ayukta or anUpa-Lok Ayukta is satisfied that such allegation is substantiated, either wholly or partly, he shall, by report in writing, communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority and also intimate the complainant about its having made the report. (4) The competent authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (3) and, within three months of the date of receipt of the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta, as the case may be, the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report. (5) If the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta is satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken on his recommendations or findings referred to in sub-sections (1) and (3), he shall close the case, under intimation to the complainant, the public servant and the competent authority concerned; but where he is not so satisfied and if he considers that the case so deserves, he may make a special report upon the case to the Governor and also inform the competent authority concerned and the complainant. (6) The Lok Ayukta shall present annually a consolidated report on the performance of his functions as well as the functions of the Upa-Lok Ayuktas, to the Governor. (7) On receipt of the special report under sub-section (5) or the annual report under sub-section (6), the Governor shall cause a copy thereof, together with an explanatory memorandum, to be laid before the Legislative Assembly. (8) The Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta may, at his discretion, make available, from time to time, the substance of cases closed or otherwise disposed of by him which may appear to him to be of general, public, academic or professional interest, in such manner and to such persons, as he may deem appropriate.” 23. In N. Ramaswamy, Professor, Department of Architecture, T.K.M. College of Engineering, Kollam v. The Kerala Lok Ayukta, represented by its Registrar [judgment dated 11.04.2012 in W.P.(C) No.23863/2007], on the complaint filed by 3 students of the aforesaid college, a notice was issued by Lok Ayukta, directing the petitioner therein to show cause why he should not be declared unfit to hold any teaching post in any of the profesional colleges in Kerala. Contending, inter alia, that the petitioner therein would not fall under the definition of “public servant”, in terms of Section 2(o) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, the petitioner therein filed the said writ petition for the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exhibit P18 notice dated 21.06.2007 issued by the Lok Ayukta and Exhibit-P19 complaint, and quashing the same. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring that Exhibit-P18 is one issued without any authority of law and is void and non est. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring that the petitioner, not being a public servant as defined in the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, is not liable to be proceeded against pursuant to Exhibit-P18.” 24. After referring to Section 2(o) of the Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, which defines “public servant”, and Section 7, which deals with the matters to be investigated by the Lok Ayukta and Upa-Lok Ayuktas, a learned single Judge, in the decision cited supra, ordered thus: “Of course the Chairman, Manager, Secretary and Correspondent having control of a Private Engineering College affiliated to any University in the State, would certainly come within the purview of the definition of 'public servant'. But the Professor of an Aided College which the petitioner is not included in the definition of 'public servant'. That being so, I am of opinion that the jurisdiction of the Kerala Lok Ayukta does not extend to the action of a Professor of a Private Engineering College. If that be so, the Lok Ayukta cannot investigate into any action of the petitioner. As such, Ext.P19 complaint filed against the petitioner before the Lok Ayukta is not maintainable and Ext.P18 notice issued pursuant to the same is without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the same as against the petitioner are quashed. This writ petition is allowed as above.” 25. In Vinod Kumar V. (Dr.) and Another v. Kerala Lok Ayukta, Tvm and Others [ILR 2016 (4) Ker. 43], appointment of the petitioners therein as Readers in a college was questioned by way of complaint before the Lok Ayukta, which interfered in the matter. Contending, inter alia, that Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to interfere with the matter, W.P.(C) No.25007 of 2015 has been filed. 43], appointment of the petitioners therein as Readers in a college was questioned by way of complaint before the Lok Ayukta, which interfered in the matter. Contending, inter alia, that Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to interfere with the matter, W.P.(C) No.25007 of 2015 has been filed. Submissions advanced by the parties therein, as summarized in the above said decision are reproduced: “3. The challenge in the writ petition against Ext. P8 order of the Lok Ayukta is premised primarily on the ground of jurisdiction. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the Lok Ayukta did not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint, that was targeted against the appointment of the petitioners herein, since the petitioners were admittedly not 'public servants' as defined under S.2(o) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, and further, the Lok Ayukta was not empowered to conduct any investigation under the Act in the case of a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action which was specifically referred to in the Second Schedule to the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act. Referring to the provisions of the Second Schedule to the above Act, it is pointed out that the excluded types of action for the purposes of S.8 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act would take in actions in respect of appointment, removal, pay, discipline, superannuation or other matters relating to conditions of service of public servants but, not including actions relating to claims for pension, gratuity, provident fund or to any claims which arise on retirement, removal or termination of service. It is pointed out therefore that, although this was a case where the petitioners were not 'public servants' for the purposes of the Act, even if the petitioners were to be treated as 'public servants', for the purposes of the Act, the Lok Ayukta's jurisdiction would be excluded by virtue of the provisions of S.8 read with the Second Schedule to the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act. 4. A counter -affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent, wherein, he has produced a copy of the complaint filed by him before the Lok Ayukta. 4. A counter -affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent, wherein, he has produced a copy of the complaint filed by him before the Lok Ayukta. The averments in the complaint are reiterated in the counter -affidavit, and it is vehemently maintained that, since the petitioners were necessary parties in an enquiry that was contemplated under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, the petitioners could not be heard to contend that they could not be proceeded against in any proceedings before the Lok Ayukta. It is reiterated that the 3rd respondent has a serious grievance in the matter of appointments granted to the petitioners, and apart from that, he has also raised allegations regarding the conduct of the public servants, who, according to the 3rd respondent, were in collusion with the petitioners in the matter of appointment granted to the petitioners. It is therefore contended that the complaint before the Lok Ayukta was maintainable in all respects, and it was within the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta to issue positive directions with regard to cancellation of the appointment of the petitioners.” 26. On the challenge as to the jurisdiction of Lok Ayukta, to entertain a complaint and pass orders, after considering the statutory provisions, holding that petitioners therein would not fall under the definition of “public servant”, a learned single Judge of this Court in Vinod Kumar V. (Dr.) (cited supra) reported in [ILR 2016 (4) Ker. 43], ordered thus: “7. A reading of the definition of 'public servant' under S.2(o) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, would indicate that neither the petitioners in this writ petition nor the 2nd respondent College, would answer to the description of 'public servant' under S.2(o) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act. It follows, therefore, that any action of the 2nd respondent College that had the effect of offering an appointment to the petitioners herein, cannot be seen as an action either taken by, or with the approval of a public servant. Ext. P6 complaint, which is preferred by the 3rd respondent before the Lok Ayukta, insofar as it relates to the petitioners in this writ petition, is with regard to the alleged illegal appointments granted to the petitioners by 2nd the respondent College. As already noted, neither the petitioners nor the 2nd respondent College answer to the description of a 'public servant' under S.2(o) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act. As already noted, neither the petitioners nor the 2nd respondent College answer to the description of a 'public servant' under S.2(o) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act. The Lok Ayukta consequently, has no jurisdiction to enquire into any action taken by the petitioners or the 2nd respondent College. 8. xx xxx xxxx 9. The powers granted under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, to the Lok Ayukta while taking the steps prescribed in S.12 to 15, indicate that the nature of the relief granted to a complainant is materially different in cases where what is alleged in a complaint is a 'grievance' and in cases where what is alleged in a complaint is an 'allegation'. The impleadment of the petitioners herein as respondents in a complaint before the Lok Ayukta, and a consequent enquiry against them by the Lok Ayukta, can be legally sustained only if it is demonstrated that the petitioners are public servants and even then, on the basis of the averments in the complaint, if it can be demonstrated that the complainant had a grievance against them. As I have already found that the petitioners do not answer to the description of public servant under the Act and further, the complainant cannot be seen as a person who had a 'grievance' in respect of their appointment, the complaint before the Lok Ayukta, to the extent it seeks an enquiry or other action against the petitioners herein cannot be maintained. Consequently, Ext.P6 complaint, to the above extent, cannot be investigated or enquired into by the Lok Ayukta. 10. I therefore declare that the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to look into this aspect of the complaint preferred before it by the 3rd respondent. As a consequence, Ext. P8 order of the Lok Ayukta, to the extent it contemplates an enquiry into the legality of the appointments offered to the petitioners, by the 2nd respondent College, is set aside.........” 27. Petitioner is an Assistant Professor in a private aided college. As per sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta may investigate any action taken by or with the general or specific approval of a public servant, if it is referred to him by the Government”. As per sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta may investigate any action taken by or with the general or specific approval of a public servant, if it is referred to him by the Government”. University of Kerala has no case that the matter was referred by the Government to the Lok Ayukta or Upa-Lok Ayukta, to investigate. At the risk of repetition, Clauses (x) to (xiii) of Section 2(o) read thus: (x) the Chairman or Manager or Secretary or Correspondent having control over the administration of a private school, whether under individual or corporate management, which receives or has received aid or grant from the Government under the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (6 of 1959), and the rules made thereunder; (xi) the Chairman or Manager or Secretary or Correspondent having control over the administration of a private college, whether under unitary or corporate management, which is affiliated to a University in the State and is governed by the Private Affiliated Colleges (Arts and Science Colleges) Staff Direct Payment of salary Rules, 1972; (xii) the Chairman or Manager or Secretary or Correspondent having control over the administration of a private college, whether under unitary or corporate management, affiliated to a University in the State and which receives aid or grant from the Government of Kerala; or (xiii) the Chairman or Manager or Secretary or Correspondent having control over the administration of a Private Engineering College or Private Polytechnic, whether under unitary or corporate management, affiliated to a University in the State or the State Board of Technical Examination., Kerala, as the case may be, and is governed by the Rules for Payment of Salaries to the Staff of the Private Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics, 1972.” 28. Though the aforesaid clauses refer to Chairman or Manager or Secretary or Correspondent, having control over the administration of the educational institutions, under the circumstances stated supra, as public servants, amenable to the jurisdiction of Lok Ayukta or Upa-Lok Ayukta, there is an exclusion in the Statute, as regards teachers working in such educational institutions to fall within the definition of “public servant”. From the statutory provisions, we can derive that Legislature does not include a teacher of an aided educational institution, as a pubic servant. 29. From the statutory provisions, we can derive that Legislature does not include a teacher of an aided educational institution, as a pubic servant. 29. In the light of the above discussion and decisions, we have no hesitation to hold that a teacher in a private aided college viz., St. John's College, Anchal, does not come within the definition of “public servant”, in terms of Section 2(o) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, amenable to the jurisdiction of Lok Ayukta, for investigation into a complaint. Therefore, we are inclined to interfere with the order dated 10.03.2011 passed against the petitioner in Complaint No.1381/2009. All the directions issued as against the petitioner are set aside. In the result, Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed.