Anand Swarup and Others vs The Lokayukta and Others

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 10.7.2012, (Annexure P.10) passed by the Lokayukta, Haryana on a complaint filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on the ground that respondent No. 1 has no power to issue direction under Section 17(2) of the Haryana Lokayukta Act, 2002. The grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is that a false complaint was made by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioners have passed B.E./B.Tech. (Civil) degree from the Rajasthan Vidyapeeth from the Distance Learning Education conducted by the University. The said University has been granted status of the deemed University by the Central Government vide notification dated 12.1.1987. Subsequently, name of the Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur was changed to Janardhan Rai Nagar, Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, Rajasthan by the Government of India. The petitioners are working with respondent No. 2 for the last many years and their work and conduct is also found satisfactory. Both the petitioners submitted their degrees with the respondents for the purpose of promotion to higher post. An objection was raised by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. On the basis of complaint made by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, respondent No. 1 has passed the impugned order dated 10.7.2012. A direction has been issued by respondent No. 1 to consider the case of promotion of the complainants at the earliest and report for the same be sent as required under Section 17(2) of the Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 1 has allowed the complaint filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, whereas, he has no power to issue any direction and the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel further submits that direction issued by respondent No. 1 is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 which is on record. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent No. 1 is competent under Section 17(2) of the Act and as such the impugned order is not violative of any constitutional right of the petitioners as they have been declined promotion by the Government and their degrees of Engineering were not from recognised/approved University. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the CWP Nos. 1808 of 2011 and 1640 of 2008 were also filed before this Court by the complainants whereby the directions were issued to restrain promotions of the candidates who had obtained degrees from unauthorised institutions. The said writ petitions are still pending after admission. Learned counsel also submits that there is no stay against promotion of the complainants and other eligible candidates and by considering the complainants, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners.

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned orders as well as other documents on the file.

The issue for consideration by this Court is whether respondent No. 1 is competent under Section 17(2) of the Act to issue direction to the government department or not?

Section 17 of the Act is reproduced as under:

"Reports of Lokayukta

(1) If, after inquiry in respect, of a complaint, the Lokayukta is satisfied-

(a) that no allegation or grievance has been substantiated, he shall close the case and intimate the competent authority concerned accordingly;

(b) that all or any of the allegations or grievances have or has been substantiated either wholly or partly, he shall, by report in writing, communicate his findings, appropriate recommendations and suggestions to the competent authority and intimate the complainant and the public servant concerned about his having made the report.

(2) The competent, authority shall cause the report to be examined and communicate to the Lokayukta within three months of the date of receipt of the report, the action taken thereon.

(3) The Lokayukta shall present to the Governor a consolidated annual report on the administration of this Act.

(4) The Governor shall cause to be laid on the table of the State Legislature a copy of the annual report referred to in sub-section (3) above within six months of its receipt along with an explanatory memorandum indicating the action taken thereon, and the reasons for not taking action in a given case."

As per provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act in case of any complaint made to Lokayukta, the inquiry is to be made on the allegations of the complaint. In case any substance is there in the allegations, he shall communicate his findings, appropriate recommendations and suggestions to the competent authorities as well as the public servant.

In case no substance is there in the complaint, he shall close the case and will intimate the competent authority concerned. As per provisions of Section 17(2) of the Act the competent authority shall examine the complaint and will communicate to the Lokayukta within a period of three months about the outcome of the inquiry conducted upon the complaint. Thereafter, the Lokayukta shall prepare a consolidated annual report and forward the same to the Governor which shall be laid on the table of the State Legislature within a period of six months of its receipt along with an explanation indicating action taken thereupon and also the reasons for not taking action in a given case. Section 18 of the Act is also relevant whereby it has been provided that the Lokayukta may issue interim directions so as to avoid grave injustice. Thereafter, the competent authority shall deal with the interim direction in the same manner as provided for final direction.

It is clear from sections 17 and 18 of the Act that Lokayukta is competent to conduct an inquiry in respect of a complaint and ask for a report from the concerned department after taking appropriate action. Under provisions 18(1) of the Act, the Lokayukta has power to issue interim directions just to avoid any grave injustice but the competent authority is to deal with the interim direction.

In the present case, the complaint was made to respondent No. 1. It was mentioned in the complaint that the department is delaying the process of promotion knowingly and deliberately for the last six months just to give benefit to those candidates who were not eligible for the post of Executive Engineer. Respondent No. 1 has only recommended to the competent authority that the promotion case of the complainants be considered in accordance with rules on the subject and action report be submitted as per provisions of Section 17(2) of the Act. On perusal of the impugned orders, it is dear that only the recommendations have been made to the competent authority for consideration of the case of promotion in accordance with law and no directions have been issued for promotion. It is for the competent authority to consider the case of promotion in accordance with law. Moreover, the dispute with regard to validity of degree awarded by Distance Learning Education is subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions which are pending consideration after admission. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.