IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 28791 of 2001(C) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SOUTH KERALA DIOCESE (CSI), L. M.S. COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DR. S. DEVANESAN, DEEPAM, PALACE COMPOUND, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CORPORATE MANAGER OF LMS SCHOOLS, SOUTH KERALA DIOCESE (CSI), LMS COMPOUND, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (PRESENTLY J STEPHENSON, POURNAMI, KALLIYOOR P.O., NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. D JUSTIN, STHUTHI, PERINGAMALA, KALLIYOOR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – EX-CORPORATE MANAGER, LMS SCHOOLS, SOUTH KERALA DIOCESE (CSI), LMS COMPOUND, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. WALSALAM M.J. S/O. JAMES, MAVILA VEEDU, KANJIRAMKULAM VILLAGE, PULLUVILA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 012/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 28791/2001. ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 PROCEEDINGS DT. 18-11-2000. EXT.P2 LETTER DT. 23-2-2001 EXT.P3 COMPLAINT NO. 293/2000. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT. EXT.P5 COPY OF REPLICATION. EXT.P6 OBJECTIONS FILED BEFORE LOK AYUKTHA. EXT.P7 COPY OF CONSTITUTION AND BYE-LAWS. EXT.P8 ORDER DT. 21-8-2001. EXT.P9 NOTICE DT. 17-9-2001. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 28791 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 12th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T Petitioners in this original petition are the South Kerala Diocese (CSI), an educational agency recognised by the Educational Authorities under the Kerala Education Act and Rules, its corporate Manager and former Manager. They are aggrieved by Ext. P8 order of the Kerala Lok Ayuktha whereby, on a complaint filed by the 3rd respondent herein, the Lok Ayukta, after entering a prima facie finding that the 3rd respondent had violated the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules in the matter of appointment of teachers in the schools under the 1st petitioner, directed the Director of Public Instruction to take proceedings in accordance with the procedure indicated in Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER. The 3rd respondent filed complaint No. 293/2000 before the Lok Ayuktha alleging that the 3rd petitioner herein had made appointments in violation of the KER in so far as after inviting applications, conducting the selection procedure and preparing a select list, persons who have not been included in the select and nominated by the Bishop had been appointed overlooking the legitimate rights of the persons included in the select list for such appointment. Before the Lok Ayuktha, the petitioners herein admitted that appointments were in fact made , of persons not included in the select list, as nominated by the Bishop, which, according to them, were permissible in accordance with the bye-laws applicable to the 1st petitioner. The Lok Ayuktha entered a prima facie finding that notwithstanding the bye-laws, when the Kerala Education Rules prescribe the manner of selection of teachers, if any selection and appointment is made in violation of those provisions, that would amount to mal-administration and therefore the DPI is liable to take appropriate steps in accordance with the Kerala Education Rules. That is under challenge in this original petition. O.P. No. 28791/2001. -: 2 :- 2. The petitioners raise several contentions. First is that as is laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in service matters, no public interest litigation would lie. They point out that as is evident from Ext. P8 order itself, the Lok Ayuktha has stated that the petition before it is a public interest litigation. Therefore, the same being in respect of a service matter, in accordance with the decisions referred to, the Lok Ayuktha ought to have rejected the complaint, is one of the contentions raised. The other contention raised is that the Lok Ayuktha could not have directed the Director of Public Instruction to proceed in accordance with Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER in so far as that action can only be against the Manager of an educational agency for removing the Manager from that post. According to the petitioners, the 3rd petitioner who was the then Manager is no longer the Manager of the School and therefore no further proceedings can be taken in accordance with Rule 7. The petitioners further contend that the 3rd respondent being a member of the diocese, which runs the school which has its own rules and bye-laws and grievance redressal procedure, the 3rd respondent ought to have approached the diocese for appropriate reliefs in accordance with the grievance redressal procedure prescribed in the rules and bye-laws of the diocese. 3. I have considered the contentions of the petitioners in detail. 4. As far as the first contention is concerned, I do not find any merit in the same. Kerala Lok Ayuktha Act is a comprehensive legislation. Any person can file a complaint before the Lok Ayuktha, if that complaint comes within the four corners of the Act. If a complaint is maintainable under the Act, irrespective of whether it is a public interest litigation or not, it would be maintainable as a complaint under the Act. The decisions referred to by the petitioners O.P. No. 28791/2001. -: 3 :- in that regard do not apply to a complaint under the Kerala Lok Ayuktha Act. Those decisions would be applicable to public interest litigation filed before the High Court and the Supreme Court invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court and Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India respectively. As far as this case is concerned, the petitioners have no case that the complaint does not fall within the definition of mal-administration etc., as defined under the Kerala Lok Ayuktha Act. That being so, that complaint, notwithstanding the fact that it is a public interest complaint, does not cease to be maintainable. 5. Regarding the second contention, on a reading of Ext. P8, I do not find that the petitioners had raised such a contention before the Lok Ayuktha at all. The Lok Ayuktha could not have considered a contention not raised before it. Even otherwise, in Ext. P8, the Lok Ayuktha had only entered a prima facie finding leaving it to the Director of Public Instruction to deal with the questions raised against the Manager in accordance with the provisions of the K.E.R. That being so, further proceedings by the Director of Public Instruction have to be after hearing the petitioners in which case, it would be open to the petitioners to raise all contentions available to them under law which is not in any way prohibited by Ext. P8. 6. The third contention also does not find favour with me. Simply because a grievance redressal procedure is prescribed in the rules and bye-laws of the diocese, that does not prevent any person from approaching the Kerala Lok Ayuktha complaining about the violation of the provisions of the K.E.R by the Manager of an aided school. Any citizen in this country has locus standi to approach the Lok Ayuktha complaining of violation of the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules by the aided school Manager in spite of the O.P. No. 28791/2001. -: 4 :- fact that a rule or bye-laws in respect of association of persons in which he is a member provide for some other grievance redressal procedure. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/