IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 29180 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. C.LAILESWARAN, S/O. CHELLAPPAN, HALASYA MADAM, VALIYARATHALA, OORUTTAMBALAM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.29180 OF 2010(V) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T University of Kerala has filed this writ petition. Exts.P4 and P6 orders passed by the Lok Ayukta is under challenge. 2. Ext.P4 is an order passed by the Lok Ayukta in complaint No.1407/2007. This order was passed on 14th May, 2010, holding that though written test was conducted by the petitioner on 29.7.2007 and short list was published on 23.5.2008, appointment to the post of Light Duty Vehicle Drivers is unduly delayed. On that basis Lok Ayukta directed the petitioner to make appointments after conducting practical test, within 2 months. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 26.7.2010. It appears that the respondent filed a statement requesting for six months more time to comply with the said direction. That request of the petitioner was rejected by Ext.P6 oder dated 26th July, 2010. It would appear that now contempt proceedings have been initiated and the contempt case now stands posted for the appearance of the Registrar for framing charges. It is at this stage that challenging Exts.P4 and P6 orders that this writ petition has been WPC.No. 29180/2010 :2 : filed. 3. Learned counsel contended that Ext.P4 order is beyond the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta and that the Lok Ayukta could have at the best sent a report to the Government. It is also contended that there is no finding of mal administration. 4. I am not impressed by the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason that the oder was passed way back on 14.5.2010. Not only that the University did not challenge the said order but the University accepted the order and filed affidavit seeking extension of time for the compliance of the said order. That application was rejected. Even thereafter the order was not complied with and only when they are facing contempt, this writ petition was filed. At this stage it is not open to the University to raise the contentions on the validity of Ext.P4 order. 5. In so far as Ext.P6 order rejecting the application made by the petitioner for extension of time is concerned, Ext.P5 is the affidavit filed by the University seeking extension of time. A reading of the affidavit discloses that nothing has been stated by the University about the steps it had taken, to comply with Ext.P4 WPC.No. 29180/2010 :3 : order. It was in that context that Ext.P6 order has been passed. Since the University did not explain the steps it had taken to comply with Ext.P6 oder, I do not find any illegality in Ext.P6 order. In that view of the matter Exts.P4 and P6 deserves to be upheld and I do so. 6. Be that as it may, counsel submits that they did take necessary steps for securing the service of expert from the KSRTC for conducting practical test and that it was due to their nonavailability they could not complete the process of selection within the time permitted by the Lok Ayukta. If that be so, it is clarified that, it will be open to the petitioner to appraise the Lok Ayukta the steps that the petitioner had taken to comply with Ext.P4 order and I have no reason to think that this will not be considered by the Lok Ayukta. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 29180/2010 :4 :