Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"61. Even if the allegations regarding favouritism, nepotism and political patronage are not established the selection process is vitiated for the reason that the Selection Board was not constituted in time and that inviting applications, conducting examination and valuation of answer sheets which were expected to be done by the Selection Board were actually done by the officers of the University who had no authority to do that. Moreover, the circumstances available in this case which had already been discussed would clearly prove that the selection process was vitiated by favouritism and nepotism.

25. It is the common case of all the appointees and the respondents in the complaint that commencement of the proceedings for selection was taken by the whole body of the nominated syndicate. There is no illegality in commencing the selection on the basis of a decision by the entire body of the syndicate on the ground that selection board was not constituted. The decision was taken not by a few persons from among the body, but by all the members which constituted the nominated body. That decision was followed by the subsequent body which came into power on election. Therefore, the finding  by the high power committee or the Upa Lok Ayukta that selection was vitiated as being violative of the provisions contained in the first statute cannot hold good. It was argued that the Lok Ayukta was not supposed to enter into any investigation into the constitution of the selection board, in view of the specific bar under section 8 r/w clause d in schedule 2 of the Lok Ayukta Act. It was therefore argued that the Upa Lok Ayukta exceeded its jurisdiction in arriving at the findings in paragraph 61, where it was found that even if the allegations regarding the favouritism, nepotism and political patronage are not established, the selection process was vitiated for the reason that selection board was not constituted in time, that inviting of applications, conducting of examination, valuation of answer sheets were all got done by the officers of the university who had no authority and that the circumstances would prove that selection process was vitiated by favouritism and nepotism. It was pointed out in the list of candidates furnished in the complaint alleging that their inclusion in the rank list was on political considerations especially to CPI(M) leaders/favouritism and nepotism, the names of one V.S.Sandhyarani, neighbor of Vice Chancellor; councilor candidate of Congress I union in  Thiruvananthapuram Corporation; G.N.Lakshmi, D/o.Former President, N.G.O Association (Congress I); one Smt.Manjusha.R, W/o the Chief Sub Editor, Malayala Manorama, were also included. However, the allegation was that respondents 1 to 3 and additional respondents 10 to 13 in the complaint joined hands to see that candidates of their choice and sympathisers of CPI(M) and allied parties were eligible for appointment. The committee had ruled out the allegation seeing that there was no positive evidence. The Upa Lok Ayukta also in para 51 ruled out the contention of the complainant on those grounds. It was pointed out that no dishonest intention on the part of any of the respondents in the complaint qua any of the candidates, could be brought out in evidence. It was pointed out that the scaling down of marks was the practice followed in the previous selection and the selection board took the decision only on the basis of the Notes submitted by the Registrar at the time of its meeting. Similarly it was pointed out that the absence of minutes fixing the norms for awarding marks, could not have been found to be a factor vitiating the selection.

32. Sri.N.Raghuraj appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No.836/2012, who are appointees, referring to the definition of allegation contained in Section 2 (b) (iii) of the Lok Ayukta Act, pointed out that the Upa Lok Ayukta crossed its barriers in placing the recommendations made in paragraph 62 of its report, based on an allegation. It was pointed out that even without  arriving at a finding that there was any nepotism or favoritism, Upa Lok Ayukta concluded that the selection was vitiated by favoritism and nepotism, in order to bring the findings within the purview of Section 2(b), i.e, allegation. It was explained that while the recommendations under clauses 1, 2, 4 and 6 cannot be said to be issued on an allegation, the recommendations in clauses 3 and 8 were merely reproduction of the provisions in the definition clause of allegation. Similarly it was pointed out that the perusal of the findings of the Upa Lok Ayukta and the conclusions in paragraphs 51 and 61 would show that the recommendations of the Upa Lok Ayukta are perverse. In paragraph 51 the Upa Lok Ayukta stated that in the absence of any evidence to show that there was political influence or influence by high profiled personalities, it is not possible to say that there was political patronage to some of the candidates who got selection. Similarly in paragraph 61, it was stated that "even if the allegations regarding the favoritism, nepotism and political patronage are not established' the selection process is vitiated for the reason that a selection board was not constituted in time and that inviting applications, conducting examinations and valuation of answer sheets which are expected to be done by the selection board were actually done by the officers of the University, who had no authority to do that. More over the circumstances available in this case which had already been discussed would clearly prove that selection process was vitiated by favoritism and nepotism."  The inconsistency in these findings were pointed out contending that those expressions 'favoritism and nepotism' were used so as to bring the findings within the purview of allegations. It was also argued that the irregularities if any in the selection were not liable to be considered by the Upa Lok Ayukta in view of Section 8 read with clause (d) of schedule 2 of the Act. It was also pointed out that the Upa Lok Ayukta entered into findings of irregularity as to the non- constitution of selection board in the year 2005 without any of the persons in the nominated body of that syndicate in the party array. Sri Raghuraj pointed out that the meaning of nepotism is not defined under the Lok Ayukta Act and it has to be understood from the dictionary meaning and it is only relating to the favouritism shown towards relatives. There is a specific finding in paragraph 51 of the report that there is no evidence to show any political patronage or favouritism shown either on account of the relationship with the officers or politicians and there is no material to come to the conclusion in paragraph 61 and the Lok Ayukta should not have carved out a particular paragraph or findings from the rest of the findings in order to bring the findings within the purview of the Lok Ayukta..

68. Even though no manipulations were found on a comparison of the C.Ds with respect to the hardware or hard discs by the expert after verifying the computer used for the tabulation work at University and no malpractice was found by him on disc image analysis, the Upa Lok Ayukta found that the missing of the official laptop of the Vice Chancellor had to be viewed with suspicion, since according to the complainant the rank list was prepared in the personal laptop of the Vice Chancellor and according to him there are manipulations in the mark list and other reports. The laptop was concealed. Referring to the examination of the 2nd respondent, it was stated  that the rank list was prepared in the official computer of the Vice Chancellor and that RW2 Registrar also stated that the Vice Chancellor did not give back the laptop saying that it was missing. Another factor found suspicious by the Upa Lok Ayukta was that the absentees' list in one of the centres was also missing. It was pointed out that one Sindu Sona Rani had submitted 2 applications pursuant to the notification and she got 2 hall tickets of 2 different centres. The University could not produce the absentee list which was prepared by the invigilator and handed over to the officer of the University. Therefore, it was found that missing of OMR sheets, missing of personal laptop of Vice Chancellor and missing of absentee list would clearly prove that there was malpractice, favouritism and nepotism shown by respondents 1, 3 and 10 to 13 in preparing the selection list. Yet another irregularity found by the Upa Lok Ayukta was that the selection board was constituted only after written examination after obtaining the results of valuation of OMR sheets. The Vice Chancellor had constituted the selection board on 30.05.2007 on the basis of the decision of the syndicate on 26.5.2007 alone. It was found that the University had received the mark lists from the Secure Print on 09.11.2005.  The Upa Lok Ayukta found that there was no impediment in constituting the selection board in time despite the amendment effected by the University Laws Amendment Act since the nominated body could exercise powers of senate and syndicate. Further it was found that under statute 8 of Chapter II in Chapter IV of the University First statute, recruitments to posts are to be made on recommendation made by the selection board and the board can decide the test to be conducted for determining the suitability of candidates for appointment. It was found that the written test was not conducted by the selection board. It was further found that the fees mentioned in the notification was not fixed by the selection board as statute 8 provides that rate of fee has to be fixed by the selection board. Notification inviting applications could have been issued only after constitution of selection board. Similarly, the test to determine the suitability of candidates is to be conducted by the selection board and it is for the selection board to decide which are the posts necessary. Schedule to the University Ordinance 1978 provides under Sl.No.21 that the method of recruitment of Assistant Gr.II shall be by recruitment on the basis of competitive test and by interview by inviting applications by  advertisements. Since there was no selection board it was found that the written test and interview was conducted by those who did not have any authority. Under Section 10(16) it is for the Vice Chancellor to see that the proceedings of the University are carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Statute, Ordinance, Regulations, Rules and Bye-laws and to report to the Chancellor every proceedings which is not in conformity with the provisions. But the Vice Chancellor without reporting any of the matter to the Chancellor allowed the proceedings to go on without constituting a selection board. Therefore, it was found that the entire process of selection was vitiated for which the 1st respondent was also responsible. It was further found that when the written test is to be conducted by the selection board, any other authority such as Vice Chancellor, Pro Vice Chancellor Registrar or any other officer of the University has no power to conduct the written test. It was found that the selection was not made in accordance with the statute and when statute prescribes a particular method, it has to be done by that method alone. It was pointed out that the findings in paragraph 61 were arrived at independently finding that the selection process was vitiated. In that background the Upa Lok Ayukta considered the question  and found that even if the allegations regarding favouritism, nepotism and political patronage were not established, still the selection process remained vitiated for want of selection board to conduct the selection. Further it was found that the selection process was vitiated by favouritism and nepotism. In paragraph 51 the Upa Lok Ayukta found that the allegation that some of the candidates were relatives of certain politicians and officers of University was baseless. It was found that it was not possible to presume that those candidates got appointment because of political patronage or because of the influence exerted by officers of the University.) The Upa Lok Ayukta concluded the findings in paragraph 63. It was further pointed out that the 1st respondent the complainant before the Upa Lok Ayukta had filed a counter affidavit in W.P(c).No.491 of 2012 producing Ext.R1(a) showing the position of the rank before and after interview along with details of the marks scored. It was pointed out that the difference of marks scored by rank Nos.1 and 2116 was 18 in the written test when the marks were awarded in 100. At the same time when it was scaled down to 75, the difference came down to 13.5 and this difference affected very seriously the candidates who would have got in the rank list, when high marks were  awarded in the interview to candidates with lower marks in the written test and they got the top position. Ext.R1(a) contains the list of about 41 candidates and it was pointed out that those who got marks between 85 and 78 were awarded marks in the interview between 11.2 and 6.6. Similarly, the first rank holder was having 82 marks in the written test and 6.6. marks in the interview. When the marks were scaled down to 75, 85 marks (out of 100) became 63.75 (out of 75) and 78 marks became 58.50.