Kerala High Court
University Of Kerala vs Noufi Mohammed on 9 May, 2012
Author: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/16TH ASWINA 1934
WP(C).No. 17293 of 2012 (J)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------------
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034,
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR IN CHARGE.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC, KERALA UTY.
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. NOUFI MOHAMMED,
O.S. HOUSE, LN-A-14, PATTOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. KERALA LOK AYUKTA,
LEGISLATURE COMPLEX,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033,
REPRESENTED BYTHE REGISTRAR.
BY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08-10-2012, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO. 17294 OF 2012 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 17293 of 2012 (J)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT-P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE LOK AYUKTA IN
COMPLAINT NO.908/2012 DATED 09-05-2012.
EXHIBIT-P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.908/12 ALONG WITH THE
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).Nos. 17293, 17294, 17295, 17296,17297, 17298,17299, 17300,
17301, 17302, 17303, 17304, 17305, 17306, 17307, 17308, 17309, 17310,
17311, 17312, 17313, 17314, 17315 , 17316 & 15902 of 2012
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DATED THIS THE 8th OF OCTOBER, 2012
JUDGMENT
All these writ petitions have been filed by the University of Kerala, aggrieved by the filing of complaints by the party respondents before the Kerala Lok Ayukta seeking for early revaluation of their answer papers. This Court while issuing notice in the writ petitions, passed an interim order on 26.7.2012 staying the further proceedings, but directed that the process of revaluation should be completed and the result of the revaluation will be published in the meanwhile. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the University that the revaluation results have been published within the period provided under the relevant regulations prevailing in the University.
2. Learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that the entertainment of the complaint itself was wrong, in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Nithya v. Cochin University of Science and Technology (2012 (1) KLT 584) as well as for other reasons pointed out in the writ petitions. None of the party respondents have appeared, in spite of W.P.(C).No.17293/2012, etc. -2- notices issued.
3. Heard learned Standing Counsel Shri George Poonthottam appearing for the petitioner. It is pointed out that a reading of the complaints will show that the complaints have been filed before the expiry of the last date for filing application for revaluation as well as the period provided in the rules for completing revaluation. They have been filing complaints before the Lok Ayukta on the same day of submitting applications for revaluation. It is submitted that actually, as far as the complainants are concerned, there is no grievance as defined in the Lok Ayukta Act which entitle them to maintain the complaints. A complaint can arise only if the applications are not being processed or are not being forwarded for revaluation within the time provided. Therefore, it is pointed out that they are too premature and these complaints could not have been entertained by the Lok Ayukta and notices ought not have been issued to the University to appear.
4. On the practical angle, it is submitted that if directions are issued in individual cases to conduct revaluation, then the University will not be able to arrange a proper revaluation as the secrecy and confidentiality of the revaluation process will have to be strictly maintained. It is submitted that W.P.(C).No.17293/2012, etc. -3- the University has only followed the directions issued by this Court in the judgment quoted above. My attention was invited to the definition of 'grievance' under Section 2(h), 'mal-administration' under Section 2(k) and Section 9 of the Act as well as Rule 9 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta (Form and Manner of Complaints) Rules, 1999. It is submitted that a reading of the complaints will show that none of them will satisfy the criteria provided under the Act and Rules for conducting investigation. It is also submitted that under Section 9(3) of the Act, the Lok Ayukta will have to conduct a preliminary enquiry and if such an enquiry was conducted, the complaints would have been rejected at its threshold. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the entertainment of a lot of complaints and issuance of directions to revalue the papers individually, will scuttle the revaluation process and that itself will affect the smooth functioning of the revaluation process and other activities of the University.
5. For easy reference, I shall refer to the averments in W.P.(C) Nos.17293/2012 and 17294/2012. In W.P.(C) No.17293/2012 the first respondent is the complainant before the Lok Ayukta. He had appeared for the 5th semester B.Tech examination, the result of which was published on 27.3.2012 wherein he failed in two papers. His application, as mentioned W.P.(C).No.17293/2012, etc. -4- in Ext.P2 is dated 16.4.2012 and the complaint itself is dated 16.4.2012. It is averred in para 7 of the writ petition that the last date fixed for submission of application for revaluation was 4.5.2012 and with fine it was 11.5.2012. The period for the publication of the revaluation results will expire after 45 days from 25.6.2012. In the notice received by the petitioner the Lok Ayukta has fixed the hearing on 4.6.2012 (Ext.P1). It is submitted that a reading of the complaint will show that there is no allegation of grievance or mal-administration for the complainant justifying the entertainment of complaints.
6. In Ext.P2 complaint the only averment for justifying the filing of the complaint is the following:
"Usually revaluation of the above subjects result will take 4-5 months to be published and as I need to appear for placement it is important to know the result as soon as possible. So I kindly request honourable Lok Ayukta to issue necessary orders to the University to speed up the revaluation procedure."
As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the University, there is no averment regarding any failure of the University to take up the applications and for completing the revaluation. It is too premature, in that the application for revaluation and the complaint itself are of the same date. W.P.(C).No.17293/2012, etc. -5- The last date for submitting the application was not over at the time of filing of the complaint.
7. In W.P.(C) No.17294/2012 also, the facts are similar. The averments are stereotyped and they are the following:
"I have applied for revaluation for the above mentioned subjects on 7th May, 2012. Usually the result would take about 4-5 months to be published. It is important to know me result as soon as possible. So, I humbly request the honourable Lok Ayukta to issue necessary orders to the University to speed up the revaluation procedure."
It is pointed out in the writ petition that in respect of the examination undertaken by the complainant therein, the last date for submission of application for revaluation without fine was 24.5.2012 and with fine it was 31.5.2012 and the period for the publication of the revaluation results will expire after 45 days from 15.7.2012. Ext.P1 notice issued to the petitioner, the Lok Ayukta fixef the date of appearance as 5.7.2012. Therein also, going by the complaint, it was preffered on 7.5.2012 and the application for revaluation is also of the same date.
8. The University also has projected in the writ petitions the volume of the work involved. It is pointed out that the University has published W.P.(C).No.17293/2012, etc. -6- around 100 examination results from January 2012 to 30th June, 2012 publishing the results of 90000 students. As on 30.6.2012 the total number of complaints filed before the Lok Ayukta is around 560 in the year 2012.
9. As far as the provisions concerning revaluation is concerned, the University had issued Order No.M&C.2.1309/2007 dated 18.4.2007 prescribing revaluation rules and under para 5, the time limit for completing the process of revaluation is 45 days from the last date of receipt of application for revaluation. Modified rules have been issued as per proceedings dated 11.6.2012 wherein the total period fixed for publishing the revaluation results have been extended to 60 days from 45 days from the last date of receipt of application for revaluation.
10. In the judgment of this Court in Nithya's case (2012 (1) KLT
584) the necessity to have a uniform procedure in respect of various Universities has been considered in detail and the Universities were directed to adopt regulations also in the matter wherever provisions are not there already. The necessity to have publication of revaluation results within a time limit, has also considered to avoid hardships to the students who apply for revaluation. After considering various aspects, this court in para 7, has issued the following directions:
W.P.(C).No.17293/2012, etc. -7- "7. In future, for effective and expeditious disposal of applications for revaluation of answer papers of examinations, all the Universities in Kerala shall strictly comply with the following directions, in letter and spirit:
(a) All the Universities shall reduce the time limit for submitting applications for revaluation to 15 days of publication of results of the examination. Copy of mark lists shall not be insisted upon to be produced along with the application. For enabling the students to know in which subject they have to seek revaluation the marks of each student, in each subject shall be uploaded in the University web site at the time of publication of the results itself.
(b) Each University shall increase the number of sections dealing with revaluation applications and each section shall be manned by adequate staff commensurate with the number of applications for revaluation being received.
(c) The persons entrusted with the regular valuation of answer papers shall be directed to compulsorily return valued answer papers within a specified time after valuation, which shall, in any event, be before the publication of the results, so that the answer papers would be readily available, when the applications for revaluation comes in.
(d) All the answer papers of a particular examination for W.P.(C).No.17293/2012, etc. -8- which applications for revaluation are received shall be valued together. Individual requests for early revaluation shall not be entertained to ensure the secrecy, confidentiality and transparency of the revaluation process as well, like the regular valuation. The Universities shall arrange to have centralised valuation camps for revaluation also, like regular valuation, wherever situation demands the same.
(e) All affiliated colleges shall periodically send lists of all qualified teachers working in their colleges, who are liable to be engaged for examination work, including valuation of answer papers. All such teachers shall be compulsory required to take up examination duties including valuation of answer papers. Any teacher who refuses to undertake examination work including valuation of answer papers shall be imposed with appropriate sanction, for which adequate provision shall be made, if not already made.
(f) All teachers shall be asked to complete valuation of answer papers including revaluation and return the answer papers within a definite time frame, which the teachers shall adhere to strictly, failure in doing which shall also be dealt with strictly and appropriate sanction shall be imposed on erring teachers for the delay.
(g) Negligence in valuation shall also be visited with appropriate sanction as applicable to delay in completing W.P.(C).No.17293/2012, etc. -9- valuation work. In case of disparity in marks, beyond permissible limits, between the original valuation and the revaluation, the same shall be sent to an expert to ascertain the reasons for such disparity and if such disparity is attributable to the teacher conducting the valuation or revaluation as the case may be, shall be appropriately dealt with so as to minimise the effect of subjectivity in valuation beyond permissible limits. If it is found that any teacher is guilty of any negligence in the matter of valuation, appropriate sanction shall be imposed on that teacher.
(h) Revaluation results shall be published before the last date fixed for submitting applications for the next regular/ supplementary examination for the particular examination.
In any event revaluation results shall be published within 45 days from the last date fixed for applying for revaluation. This is the outer time limit and revaluations shall be completed earlier, if possible, like in the case of fewer applications for revaluation. For any delay, the teachers/officers responsible shall be made accountable. However, in respect of the Cochin University of Science and Technology, who have already framed Ordinances, the time limit prescribed by the Ordinances shall continue to apply.
These directions are not exhaustive and the Universities are free to adopt such other measures as they think fit, which would W.P.(C).No.17293/2012, etc. -10- ensure speedier completion of the revaluation process." As far as sub para (d) therein is concerned, the direction is that all the answer papers of a particular examination for which application for revaluation are received shall be valued together. Individual requests for early revaluation shall not be entertained to ensure the secrecy, confidentiality and transparency. It is also directed that the University shall arrange to have centralised valuation camps for revaluation also, like regular valuation, wherever situation demands for the same.
11. As far as the petitioner University is concerned, going by the revaluation rules, it can be seen that revaluation camps will have to be conducted in the CV camp building in the University Campus, three weeks after the publication of results to speed up the process of publication of revaluation results.
12. Therefore, going by the directions of this Court, individual applications cannot be entertained out of turn for the purpose of revaluation which will destroy the secrecy, confidentiality and transparency. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when different interim orders are passed by the Lok Ayukta in each complaints, the directions as above issued by this Court could not be adhered to. W.P.(C).No.17293/2012, etc. -11-
13. As far as the provisions of the Act are concerned, it can be seen that the following aspects are relevant. The definition of 'grievance' in Section 2(h) as well as 'mal-administration' in Section 2(k) are the following:
"2(h) 'grievance' means a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of mal-administration. 2(k) 'mal-administration' means action taken or purporting to have been taken in the exercise of administrative functions in any case where,--
(i) such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; or
(ii) there has been wilful negligence or undue delay in taking such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action involves undue delay."
Therefore, only a complaint which highlights these aspects can be entertained for the purpose of investigation. The second limb of the definition of 'mal-administration' in Section 2(k) will show that there should be allegation of wilful negligence or undue delay in taking action. Section 9(3) of the Act provides for preliminary enquiry also and if such an enquiry is conducted as provided therein, it will allay the complaint of the W.P.(C).No.17293/2012, etc. -12- University of hardship to them to a greater extent and they will be able to furnish details with regard to the applicants even at the earliest stage, the manner of taking action in the matter, the last date for submitting application for revaluation, and the period provided under the regulations for completing the revaluation. The petitioner has got a case that under the Lok Ayukta (Form and Manner of Complaint) Rules, 1999, Rule 3 strictly prescribes the complaint to be filed in the form and Rule 9 prohibits entertainment of a complaint which is defective and that the same also not clearly adhered to. Since the rules itself specifies so, the same also will have to be strictly insisted.
14. The petitioner relies upon various judgments of this Court with regard to the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta, viz. including the decisions in State of Kerala v. Bernard (2002 KHC 765) and K.K. Ramachandran Master v. The Kerala Lok Ayukta and others (2006 KHC 1122). Various aspects have been laid down therein which need not be reiterated.
15. A reading of the complaints in all the writ petitions will show that the same have been filed in a stereo typed manner without any averment regarding the alleged grievance and of any mal-administration. Therefore, the same evidently will not satisfy the requirements of the Act. W.P.(C).No.17293/2012, etc. -13- Those complaints have been filed on the same day of submitting applications for revaluation and that too before the expiry of the last date for submitting applications and without waiting for any action being taken on the said applications and also without giving a breathing time to the University to take steps in terms of the rules for conduct of revaluation.
16. Therefore, the complaints are not liable to be entertained for the above reasons and I hold so. The writ petitions are thus allowed. Ext.P2 in all the writ petitions are quashed. As it is informed that the revaluation results have already been published in respect of the party respondents, no further directions are called for in respect of the said matter. No costs.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) kav/