KT Jaleel, former minister of higher education and minority affairs of the Kerala government, has appealed to the Supreme Court to annul the verdict passed by the Kerala High Court.
As per a report by the Kerala Lok Ayukta, he had been accused of favouritism and nepotism and was subsequently ousted from his office.
Background
Mr Jaleel was implicated in one of Mr KT Adeeb’s appointments as the General Manager in the Kerala State Minorities Development Finance Corporation Ltd.
The report by Lokayukta gave tidings that Mr Jaleel misused his power and privilege as a Minister to alter the requirements for the position as mentioned above to “B.Tech with PGDBA” without any prior consultation with the Corporation.
Had this eligibility criteria not been modified, it is said that Mr Adeeb would not have qualified for the echelon position.
Legal Discourse
The Kerala HC had dismissed his plea, in response to which the minister raised his grievance in the SC, claiming that the HC has erred gravely by a marked departure from following or complying with the mandatory requirements proscribed within the Lokayukta Act.
Seeking an interim ex parte stay, he has contended that the Lokayukta must conduct a thorough investigation amidst allegations levelled against him based on a Preliminary Inquiry.
The pleading party has averred that the final judgment was arrived upon rashly, violating the principles of natural justice embodied in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
The final report was prepared only based on a specific chronology of events and not an apt investigation, as per the complaint, equivalent to prejudice.
The plea states that “even though proceedings under the Lokayukta Act” come under judicial proceedings, as per Section 11(3) of the Kerala Lokayukta Act, there was no endeavour made to adduce requisite evidence, examination of witnesses, and furnishing of documents.
Errors Averred
Some of the errors encountered according to the aggrieved appellant comprise:
The letter forwarded by the Managing Director of the Corporation had specifically stated that Mr Adeeb was a “fit candidate” for the delegation of the said position.
However, the Lokayukta doesn’t deem this to be an appropriate acknowledgement and recommendation whatsoever.
According to the Lokayukta, the predecessors of Mr Jaleel, namely Sherafudeen and Faisal Muneer in 2014 and 2015, respectively was overseen by the directorial board, and they’d to reason to believe that this was not the case with Mr Adeeb. His appointment came directly within the gambit of the Government itself.
The petitioner claims that all three had been identically appointed with the Government issuing a common phrase of “according sanction to appoint”. Hence, there was no case of any digression from the natural course of events that typically occur.
The Chief Minister put the two additional qualifications for the post of GM as there was a shortage of suitable candidates who could apply. This rebuts Lokayukta’s observation of Mr Jaleel’s influence.
The petitioner additionally remarks that these errors might lend credence to the fact that Mr Jaleel is being made a scapegoat in the present Government’s regime, which supposedly wants to protect its image.
