Thiruvananthapuram: In a big assistance for the Higher Education Minister R Bindu and the LDF government, Lok Ayukta on Friday did not find a complaint that the Minister had misused his position in the appointment of the University of Kannur Ravindran for the second term.
It rejected the petition proposed by the leader of the Senior Congress of Ramesh Chennithala looking for a declaration below Section 14 of Lok Ayukta’s actions that he was guilty of favoritism and nepotism and therefore not feasible to continue to hold the minister’s office.
Taking judgment, Lok Ayukta Cyria Joseph J said there was no evidence to prove the allegations that the Minister mobilized the impact on the appointment.
Lok Ayukta, however, refused to enter the promises of meeting per se, said the problem was waiting before the High Court.
It also rejects the argument that the minister has to do with a high ranking guaranteed by the wife of Personal Secretary CM K Ragesh in Interview Professor Associate at Kannur University.
Such allegations, observing Lok Ayukta, is “wild allegations without material or circumstances to prove it.
There is no legal or factual basis for the charges of complainants that all other meritorious candidates are passed, and politically important people are awarded first rank.” Lok Ayukta said -Surat sent by the Minister to the Governor at the VC appointment cannot be interpreted as abuse of power.
There are many letters from the minister carrying ‘suggestions / proposals’ regarding the appointment and they cannot be referred to as an effort to put pressure on Chancellor since the minister sent such papers as Pro Chancellor.
The Higher Education Minister is “no stranger to university” and cannot really not care about university affairs, said judgment.
“It is very important that the suggestions carried out by Pro-Chancellor are accepted by Chancellor and the government are permitted to submit a proposal needed for the appointment of appointment at this time,” he said.
However, Lok Ayukta said that the understanding of the ministers about the legal provisions may or may not be wrong.
Also, the legal opinion given by General Advocates is also possible or maybe not wrong.
But the pro-chancellor sent a letter to Chancellor with the support of legal opinion about general advocates was not misuse of his position as a civil servant, it was held.
“There is no accusation that the minister is driven in the disposal of its function with personal interests or inappropriate or corrupt motives.
Although it is suspected that he is guilty of favoritism, nepotism and lack of integrity, there is absolutely no ingredients to prove it,” said judgment.
“The Chancellor’s actions in appointing Chancellor’s representative cannot be investigated by this court because Chancellor is not a public servant as defined in Lok Ayankta Act, 1999.
So, in this complaint, we do not care about the legality and validity of the appointment of Gopinath Ravindran,” added orders.