Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission and Dr. Arun Anirudhan

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN TUESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 18TH MAGHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 30689 OF 2017** ## **PETITIONER/:** SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,DR. ASHA KISHORE BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ SHRI.V.SAJITH KUMAR, SC, SCTIMST ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION TURBO PLUS TOWER,P.M.G. JUNCTION, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. - 2 DR. ARUNANIRUDHAN ENGINEER D, BMT WING, SCTIMST,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,RESIDING AT C22 GLEN VALLEY,MUDAVAN MUGHAL, POOJAPPURA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 012. BY ADVS. KUM.AMMU MANOHARAN NARAYANAN SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR- R1 SMT.P.K.RESHMA - R1 SMT.K.J.KARTHIKA SMT.P.SREELAKSHMI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) No. 30689 OF 2017** **-:2:-** ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 7[th] day of February, 2023 ## **S. MANIKUMAR, CJ** Instant writ petition is filed by the Director of Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences & Technology, Trivandrum, seeking for the following reliefs: - (i) Declare that the Kerala State Human Rights Commsision, respondent No.1, has no authority to entertain Exhibit-P3 complaint filed by the 2[nd] respondent; - (ii) Call for the records leading to Exhibit-P7 and to quash Exhibits-P5 and P6 orders, in so far it directs personal appearance of the petitioner; 2. Material on record discloses that complaining denial and discrimination in the matter of appointment of staff, particularly, Secretary to the President, by ignoring all the criteria for appointment, unlawfully raising the salary of the appointed person on contract basis against written norms and misusing Government and taxpayers’ money, 2[nd] respondent has filed a complaint before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, respondent No.1, against the then Director of Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking **WP(C) No. 30689 OF 2017** ## **-:3:-** to take action against the complainant for the mental harassment and mental torture, and also to protect his human rights. 3. The complainant has also sought for an enquiry against the then Director of Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology for the alleged mental harassment and discriminatory behaviour against him. 4. Taking note of the averments in the complaint, Kerala State Human Rights Commission has passed an interim order on 02.08.2017 in HRMP No.7630/17/TVM, which reads thus: ## **“KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION** Turbo Plus Tower, P.M.G. Junction VikasBhavan P.O., Thiruvananthapuram -33 PhoneL 0471-2307263 Fax: 0471-2307490 Email: hrckeralatvm@gmail.com H.R.M.P.No. 7630/17/TVM Date: 2/8/17 To Dr. Asha Kishore, Sree Chithira Thirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Biomedical Technology Wing, TVPM. A petition filed by Sri/Smt.------------------------came up before the Commission on 2/8 and the Commission has ordered you to file a detailed report/objection/explanation on the petition, with copies on or before 13/9. The case has been listed for hearing on 13/9 at 10.30 AM in the Camp Sitting of the Commission at Thiruvananthapuram. You are requested to forward the report /objection/ **WP(C) No. 30689 OF 2017** ## **-:4:-** explanation (with two copies) as directed within the time fixed by the Commission. A copy of the petition is enclosed herewith. **==> picture [30 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [84 x 26] intentionally omitted <==** 5. In this connection, Exhibit-P6 order dated 29.08.2017 has been issued, directing appearance of the parties. 6. Material on record further discloses that subsequent to the filing of O.A No.86/2017, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, against Sree Chitra Thirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, for a direction to respondents therein to publish the guidelines and criteria to be followed by the Senior Staff Selection Committee for conducting interview and recommending to the general body for promotion and for further reliefs, complaint before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission is filed. 7. Being aggrieved by the action of the Human Rights Commission, in entertaining a complaint and in issuing Exhibits-P5 and P6 orders 22.08.2017 and 29.08.2017 respectively, instant writ petition is filed on the grounds, _inter alia_ , that the Central Government has already issued notification under the provisions **WP(C) No. 30689 OF 2017** **-:5:-** of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and included the Institute within the purview of the Central Administrative Tribunal. In the above circumstances, contention has been raised that matters pertaining to service disputes cannot be entertained by State Human Rights Commission. 8. Averments have been raised to the effect that when the 2[nd] respondent has challenged the action of the petitioner Institute, by filing OA No.86/2017 on 31.01.2017, the Human Rights Commission, erred in entertaining the complaint. There are other grounds as well on merits. 9. Though Dr. Arun Anirudhan, Engineer D, BMT Wing, SCTIMST, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.2, has raised issues that, when the complaint was filed as against the then Director of Sree Chitra Thirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Dr. Asha Kishore, in his personal capacity, instant writ petition filed by Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, represented by Dr. Asha Kishore is not maintainable, we are not inclined to accept the same, for the reason that the very initiation of complaint before Human Rights Commission, after the filing of O.A. No.86/2017 before the Central **WP(C) No. 30689 OF 2017** **-:6:-** Administrative Tribunal, itself is not maintainable. 10. Further, it is contended that what was alleged before the Human Rights Commission was the mental harassment and mental torture against the then Director of Sree Chitra Thirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, and therefore, the complaint was to protect human rights, and in such circumstances, it is maintainable, we are also not inclined to accept the said contention, for the reason that going through the complaint, we find that the main issues raised by the complainant/respondent No.2 are denial of promotion from Engineer D to E, certain matters pertaining to administration regarding the appointment, raising of salary etc., as stated supra. For brevity, few paragraphs of the complaint are reproduced:- - “ - **Denied my promotion from Engineer D to E** - SCTIMST had made compulsory PhD degree for Engineer D & above in 2010. I am currently the only Engineer with a Doctorate. had questioned the relaxation of this requirement of PhD to B.Tech by the Director in 2015 so that she could appoint someone favourable to her. It is also humbly submitted that few of my colleagues who have been promoted by the same Selection Committee which has failed me, have less qualifications, publications and research activities compared to me. I had two Research projects and a Visiting Fellow of Indian National Science Academy. Besides I am being invited by many prestigious Institutes like Rajiv **WP(C) No. 30689 OF 2017** **-:7:-** Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology, National Institute of Technology etc. for taking classes. - Dr. Asha Kishore had asked one of my student, Mr.Ashok to give a fake complaint against me so that she could take action against me by initiating an Internal inquiry commission. The minor incident for which the student himself had apologized to me via email was blown out of proportion and Director coaxed him to complain against me almost six months after the incident. - In the prestigious Technology Conclave meeting 2017 of the SCTIMST, wherein I was a coordinator, Director intervened to remove me from this without a genuine reason. This humiliated me in front of my colleagues, commercial partners of the Institute and students and was subject to severe mental depression. - I had complained to the Governing Body about various unlawful and autocratic decisions of Dr. Asha Kishore in the day to day administration. And in a meeting she went on to use abusive words against me and called me 'Paranoid' in front of Dr.Harikrishna Varma Head, BMT wing. - My complaint against the director to the internal grievance cell for calling me paranoid made two days after the incident was left without any further action, but the administration has charged me with a memorandum and am now facing an inquiry based on a letter by the director on the same incident (drafted 20 days after the incident). - Denied Postdoctoral Fellowship- a Professor had agreed to help me with further research which the Director made it difficult or impossible. - The result of my second promotion interview has been withheld in view of the inquiry which has been initiated (without a complaint) recently based on minor events that has happened nearly a year back. Honourable Commission, these aforesaid acts by the Director of the institution is for the reason that that I had complained as a Whistleblower with the Central Vigilance **WP(C) No. 30689 OF 2017** **-:8:-** Commission, CBI, Ministry of Finance and Institute Vigilance Officer against the manipulation of fund on software purchase and misuse of powers by governing body of the institute. After this investigation the company named INKROMA had been blacklisted and CBI had recommended suitable action against C.V Muraleedharan, Associate Head of the BMT Wing. I had then sought protection as a Whistleblower, but now am being victimised for this. I had also complained against the appointment of a staff i.e., Secretary to the President by ignoring all the criteria for the appointment, unlawfully raising the salary of the appointed person on contract basis against written norms and misusing Government & taxpayers money by all these deeds.Honourable Commission, as a dutiful government servant, I feel I have done the right thing by pointing out to the proper authorities about the misdeeds. It is also humbly submitted that continuous harassment and mental torture by Dr. Asha Kishore for the last two years have affected my morale and also adversely affected my health. I am the single earning member of my family and have to take care of my wife and son in addition to give care to my aged parents who are also facing age related health issues. I am a fully devoted Engineer who is actively involved in research activities. Victimization and personal targeting to a young Engineer who has proven credentials to contribute much to our country, is a matter of worry and great concern. When both the Central and State Governments are giving stress to encourage young scientists and engineers to serve the nation, an Institute of National Importance like SCTIMST is demoralizing an young scientist like me. Honourable Commission, hence I plea for necessary action against the Director Dr. Asha Kishore, for the mental harassment, mental torture and unlawful decisions against me and to protect my Human Rights Values by misusing her power. I also plea to conduct an enquiry against Dr. Asha Kishore for misusing her post for manipulations and for her discriminate behaviour against me.” **WP(C) No. 30689 OF 2017** **-:9:-** 11. As regards State Human Rights Commission’s jurisdiction to entertain a complaint in service matters, a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in **Malabar Cements Ltd. (M/s) v. K.Baburajan and others** [(2019) 4 KHC 131] held as under:- “18. At this juncture, we may take note of Regulation 17 of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001 which deals with maintainability of complaints before the Commission. Regulation 17 states that, the Commission may dismiss in limine complaints of the nature enumerated in clauses (a) to (l). Clause (f) of Regulation 17 provides that, the Commission may dismiss in limine, complaints wherein the issue raised relates to civil disputes, service matters, labour or industrial dispute. Clause (i) of Regulation 17 provides that, the Commission may dismiss in limine complaints, if the matter is covered by a judicial verdict/decision of the National Commission or a State Commission. Similarly, going by clause (l), the Commission may dismiss the complaints in limine, where the matter raised is outside the purview of the Commission or on any other ground. 19. Clause (f) of Regulation 17 specifically provides that, the Commission may dismiss in limine a complaint, if the issue raised relates to service matters. The issue raised by the first respondent in Ext.P6 petition relates to his appointment as a Mazdoor in the company and it is a service matter. The Commission should have dismissed the complaint in limine especially in the light of Ext.P1judgment of this Court in the same matter between the same parties, which had attained finality.” 12. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are of the view that the decision in **Malabar** **Cements** (supra) squarely applies to the case on hand. **WP(C) No. 30689 OF 2017** ## **-:10:-** 13. That apart, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, after considering the statutory provisions, in **District Tourism Promotion Council, represented by its Secretary v. State of Kerala represented by the Secretary and Others** [2021 SCC Online Ker. 3052] held as under: “8. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10(2) read with Section 29 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the Kerala State Human Rights Commission has made the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001. As per Regulation 17, certain complaints are not ordinarily maintainable and that the Commission may dismiss in limine complaints of the following nature: (a) Illegible; (b) vague, anonymous or pseudonymous; (c) trivial or frivolous; (d) barred under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 36 of the Act; (e) allegations do not disclose involvement of any public servant; (f) issue raised relates to civil disputes, service matters, labour or industrial dispute; (g) allegations do not raise any violation of human rights; (h) If the matter raised is subjudice before a Court or Tribunal; (i) the matter is covered by a Judicial verdict/decision of the National Commission or a State Commission. (j) Where the complaint is only a copy of the petition addressed to some other authority. (k) Where the petition is not signed or where the original petition is not sent to the Commission; (l) Where the matter raised is outside the purview of the Commission or on any other ground. **WP(C) No. 30689 OF 2017** **-:11:-** 9. As the matter pertains to service dispute, in the light of clause (f) of Regulation 17 of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001, in our considered view, the Commission ought to have dismissed Exhibit P5 complaint preferred by respondent No. 4 in limine. 10. To put it clear, undoubtedly the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in service matters and consequently to adjudicate the same. Accordingly, the order passed in H.R.M.P. No. 7247/11/11/19/KLM is also without jurisdiction. 11. In such a view of the matter, instant writ petition is allowed and Exhibit P7 order dated 30.01.2020 in H.R.M.P. No. 7247/11/11/19/KLM is quashed, and consequently Exhibit P5 complaint filed by the 3[rd] respondent dated 3.10.2019 on the files of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission is dismissed.” 14. In the light of the discussion and giving due consideration to the decisions extracted above, we hold that the State Human Rights Commission has no authority to entertain Exhibit-P3 complaint filed by the 2[nd] respondent regarding service matters. Consequently, Exhibits-P5 and P6 orders are set aside. Writ petition is allowed. ## **Sd/-** **S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** ## **Sd/-** **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** spc/ **WP(C) No. 30689 OF 2017** **-:12:-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30689/2017** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION DATED 30.7.2016 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF GOVERNING BODY MEETING DATED 13.11.16. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 1.8.2017. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 2.8.2017 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.8.2017 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29.8.2017 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF OA 86/2017 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. ..