JUDGMENT : P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J. The petitioner is the manager of Shree Vidyadhiraja Homoeopathic Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram (for short 'the College'), which is a Government aided institution. The petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P14 and to direct the 3 rd respondent to consider Ext.P15 representation within a time frame fixed by this Court. Ext.P14 is an order issued by the 3 rd respondent-Additional Chief Secretary, Vigilance Department directing the 4 th respondent-Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to conduct an enquiry into the alleged irregularities in the appointment of non-teaching staff in the College after 2009. In Ext.P15, the petitioner sought to stay further action pursuant to Ext.P14 and to consider the facts mentioned therein before undertaking any further enquiry or investigation as contemplated in Ext.P14. 2. The 3 rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit justifying Ext.P14. It is averred that in the light of the findings in Ext.P9 report and other circumstances came to the notice of the 3 rd respondent, an enquiry into the allegations concerning the appointment of non-teaching staff in the College was found essential. It is also contended that the petitioner has no locus standi at this stage to question the enquiry permitted as per Ext.P14. 3. The additional 5 th respondent got himself impleaded. It was on the basis of his complaint, a vigilance enquiry was ordered. Two complaints made by Dr.L.Tara, who was the former Principal of the College, were also taken into account. In his counter-affidavit, the additional 5 th respondent raised detailed contentions concerning the ineligibility of the petitioner to question a vigilance enquiry and also substantiating the reasons for conducting such an enquiry. It is contended that the petitioner while making appointments of various staff members in the College, received hefty amounts as bribe. It is alleged that in respect of appointment and maintenance of service records of, at least, nine non-teaching staff, manipulations were made, including in their date of appointment. It is alleged that the petitioner with the help of the then Additional Secretary to Government, Ayush Department did selection of such nine non-teaching staff members and claimed that they have joined duty. While the intention of the Government in issuing Ext.R5(b) order was to accommodate the excess staff named therein in the vacancies to be created, the management selected nine other persons. On account of such irregular selection and appointments, the Government sustained huge loss. While the intention of the Government in issuing Ext.R5(b) order was to accommodate the excess staff named therein in the vacancies to be created, the management selected nine other persons. On account of such irregular selection and appointments, the Government sustained huge loss. In such circumstances, a detailed vigilance enquiry as directed in Ext.P14 is inevitable. It is accordingly contended that the writ petition has been filed without any bona fides and locus standi. 4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appeared on instructions for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Prosecutor, the Special Government Prosecutor (Vigilance) and the learned counsel for the additional 5 th respondent. 5. When Shree Vidyadhiraja Homoeopathic Medical College started functioning as an aided Medical College, direct payment system was introduced. Agreement entered into by the College with the Government in that regard is Ext.P1. Initially the strength of non-teaching staff was 27, which was increased to 48. As per Ext.P2 G.O. dated 11.01.2019, the staff pattern was recognised. Therefore, the selection should have been in terms of the Government instructions. The process of selection was undertaken with a Government nominee in the Selection Committee. 42 persons selected were approved by the Government as per Ext.P4 order dated 28.02.2019. The petitioner claims that five persons included in the select list were included in the supernumerary post. 6. Dr.L.Tara was the Principal of the College till 20.05.2020. She was removed from the post following disciplinary action. In the wake of her removal, Dr.L.Tara lodged complaints one after the other alleging malpractices in the appointment of non-teaching staff and maintenance of their service records. It is seen that Dr.L.Tara approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.12265 of 2020 alleging that no proper action was taken on her complaints. As per Ext.P6 judgment, that writ petition was disposed of directing the Additional Chief Secretary, Vigilance Department to ensure that appropriate action was taken on the complaint submitted by Dr.L.Tara. In compliance of the said direction, an enquiry was conducted by the 2 nd respondent- Secretary to Government, Ayush Department and the report thereon is Ext.P9. The conclusions in Ext.P9 are the following: “21. Considering all these points, it seems that back-dated appointment orders and probation declaration orders of many staff were placed before the Government nominee in the Selection Committee meeting held on 16.01.2019. The conclusions in Ext.P9 are the following: “21. Considering all these points, it seems that back-dated appointment orders and probation declaration orders of many staff were placed before the Government nominee in the Selection Committee meeting held on 16.01.2019. Based on the documents, the Selection Committee recommended appointment of 42 individuals to the posts created vide orders of 11.01.2019. However, the Selection Committee minutes did not indicate the date of appointment of these staff. The G.O. of 28.02.2019 also therefore has regularised the staff with effect from 11.01.2019 only. 22. In view of these details, it seems that appointments of non- teaching staff of SVHMC Nemom, appointed at least after 2009, needs to be probed in detail through a full-fledged vigilance enquiry. 23. We may request Vigilance Department to order a full-fledged enquiry into appointments of non-teaching staff at SVHMC, Nemom. Action is being initiated in the regular file (Ayush B2- 205/2018) to cancel/modify G.O.(Ms) No.5/2019/Ayush of Ayush (B) Department dated 28.02.2019.” 7. It was based on the said report, the 3 rd respondent accorded prior approval as envisaged in Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) to conduct an enquiry as recommended therein. It is seen that the additional 5 th respondent submitted a complaint dated 17.08.2020 before the 3 rd respondent-Additional Chief Secretary alleging various kinds of malpractices in creation of various posts of non-teaching staff and their selection and appointment in the College. That complaint resulted in holding of a confidential enquiry by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. Ext.P11 is the report. The findings in the said report are the following: 8. The petitioner would contend that when the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau had already conducted a thorough enquiry into the allegations concerning the creation of posts, selection, appointment and maintenance of service records of the non-teaching staff members and arrived at the conclusion that the allegations were baseless, there is absolutely no justification for the 3 rd respondent according previous approval for another enquiry/investigation. It is further submitted that Ext.P11 report was not brought to the notice of the 3 rd respondent and that was the reason why Ext.P14 order happened to be issued. It is further submitted that Ext.P11 report was not brought to the notice of the 3 rd respondent and that was the reason why Ext.P14 order happened to be issued. When every aspect of the allegations raised by not only the additional 5 th respondent, but also Dr.L.Tara, the former Principal, were thoroughly enquired into and found to be baseless, there is no reason or rhyme for a further investigation. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that Ext.P14 is liable to be set aside. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would point out that as held by the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. and others [ (2014) 2 SCC 1 ] a preliminary inquiry was already conducted and therefore the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau cannot unleash another such enquiry especially when the conclusion arrived at is that the allegations are baseless. In the complaint submitted by the additional 5 th respondent, there are allegations that huge amounts were received by making appointments of non- teaching staff in the College. It was also alleged that in the case of nine staff members the records were manipulated with a view to accommodate them who were already overaged. For that purpose the service books of those nine persons were allegedly manipulated as well. Inclusion of the Additional Secretary to Government, Ayush Department in the Selection Committee was said to be against Government norms and without permission from the Government. In the matter of creation of posts also, serious allegations are raised. 10. The complaints raised by Dr.L.Tara were mainly regarding manipulation of the service records of a few staff members, the object whereof also was said to be to convince the Government that such persons were in service much before their appointment. She even alleged that her signatures were forged in the service books and other records misusing her seals in the capacity of Vice Principal and Principal. The further allegation raised was that the management tried to appoint different persons than those who were included in Ext.R5(b) G.O. as excess staff. 11. A perusal of Ext.P11 would show that all those allegations were thoroughly enquired into. It was concluded that there was no material at all to support the allegation that the management of the College received huge amount as bribe for providing appointments to non-teaching staff. 11. A perusal of Ext.P11 would show that all those allegations were thoroughly enquired into. It was concluded that there was no material at all to support the allegation that the management of the College received huge amount as bribe for providing appointments to non-teaching staff. Having regard to the contradictory nature of the allegations in the successive complaints submitted by Dr.L.Tara and had enquiry into the allegations therein, it was observed that her allegations concerning misuse of her signature and seal were incorrect. In the enquiry conducted by the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau, no materials to substantiate the allegations that various posts in the College got sanctioned illegally and the constitution of the Selection Committee or its proceedings are vitiated, could be collected. 12. The findings in Ext.P9 report are not in agreement with the findings in Ext.P11. There are findings in Ext.P9 report that appointment and declaration of probation of a few staff members were made with pre-date. Other than that there have been attempts from the part of the management of the College to show that a few of the non teaching staff were appointed on dates prior to the Government order dated 11.01.2019, there is no findings in Ext.P9 as to any other corruption elements. 13. It may be noted that 48 posts of non-teaching staff were created in the College following various litigations before this Court and deliberations at the Government level. It cannot, therefore, be said that in the matter of creation of those posts there occurred any element of corruption. Similar is in the matter of constitution of a Selection Committee and the process of selection. As regards the appointment of 42 persons to various posts of non-teaching staff, there is a Government order and in that matter also no element of corruption can be attributed. In the said circumstances, issuing a blanket order, Ext.P14 enabling a sweeping enquiry/investigation into the allegations contained in complaints put in by the additional 5 th respondent and Dr.L.Tara is incorrect. What can be permitted is an enquiry/investigation concerning the matters connecting to the efforts allegedly put in by the management of the college to show that a few non teaching staff were appointed on the dates earlier to their actual appointment. To the above extent Ext.P14 is liable to be sustained. What can be permitted is an enquiry/investigation concerning the matters connecting to the efforts allegedly put in by the management of the college to show that a few non teaching staff were appointed on the dates earlier to their actual appointment. To the above extent Ext.P14 is liable to be sustained. Certainly, during such enquiry/investigation, the materials provided by the petitioner, particularly, facts mentioned in Ext. P15 shall also be taken into account. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of.