Page No.# 1/22 GAHC020005822025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WA/27/2025 SHRI Y. VUNTHUNGO SENIOR PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, WOKHA, NAGALAND-797111 VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA-797001 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT. OF NAGALAND DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION NAGALAND KOHIMA-797001 3:THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION NAGALAND KOHIMA-797121 4:THE NAGALAND LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY NAGALAND LOKAYUKTA NAGALAND KOHIMA-797001 5:SMTI. AVINO TASE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION NAGALAND KOHIMA 6:SMTI. S. LIPOKINLA IMCHEN SR. PRINCIPAL GHSS MAYANGNOKCHA MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND Page No.# 2/22 7:SMTI. KAREN SEMA PRINCIPAL GHSS CHUMOUKEDIMA CHUMOUKEDIMA NAGALAND. 8:SHRI KUGHAZHE SWU SR. PRINCIPAL GHSS ZUNHEBOTO NAGALAND 9:SHRI KEVIZAKIE RIO DEPUTY DIRECTOR/ JOINT MISSION DIRECTOR OF SAMAGRA SHIKSHA DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION NAGALAND KOHIM Advocate for the Petitioner : C. T. JAMIR, SR. ADV, I IMCHEN,IMTILA PONGEN,JAWAMONG YADEN,KROVI TSUKRU,NUNGSANG AIER,O TEMJEN JAMIR,TOSHI JAMIR,ALIBA OZUKUM,ASA RUTSA Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Date : 14-08-2026 (N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J) Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel, assisted by Mr. I. Imchen, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. W. Jamir, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 to 9. 2. The appellant, by way of instituting the present intra-court appeal, has assailed a judgment and order dated 13-08-2025, passed by the learned Page No.# 3/22 Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 50/2023. 3. The facts in brief, leading to the institution of the present writ appeal, are noticed as under:- The appellant, herein, was initially appointed as a Computor under the Directorate of Economics and Statistics on 11-03-1997. He was thereafter sent on deputation as Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) to the Department of School Education for a period of 02 (two) years. While the appellant was continuing on deputation, his services against the original post of Computor in the Department of Economics and Statistics came to be regularized. However, the appellant was not reverted to his parent department and was absorbed as PGT in the Department of School Education. 4. The appellant was absorbed in the Department of School Education vide notification dated 14-02-2011 and therein, it was stipulated that his seniority is to be counted from the date of his initial joining as PGT on deputation. The said notification dated 14-02-2011 was, however, subsequently modified vide a notification dated 29-01-2012, and the seniority of the appellant was now stipulated to be so reckoned in the cadre of PGT w.e.f. 18-01-2011, i.e. the date of the cabinet decision and not from the date of his initial joining on deputation against the post of PGT. 5. The appellant, being aggrieved by the notification dated 29-01-2012, had assailed the same by way of instituting a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 107/2012. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the matter, proceeded vide judgment and order dated 04-09-2013, to interfere with the Page No.# 4/22 notification dated 29-01-2012 and further directed that the seniority of the appellant would be reckoned w.e.f. 30-04-2003, i.e. the date of his joining against the post of PGT on deputation. The appellant’s seniority now having been directed to be so reckoned w.e.f. 30-04-2003, persons junior to him in the cadre of PGT having been promoted to the next higher cadre of Principal and Senior Principal, the appellant was also granted officiating promotion to the post of Principal vide notification dated 17-07-2014 and as Senior Principal (Senior Grade-1) vide notification dated 13-12-2017. 6. It is projected by the appellant that prior to his promotion to the post of Principal and Senior Principal, he had obtained his B.Ed. degree from CMJ University. It is further projected that the appellant had pursued his B.Ed. course after obtaining due “No Objection Certificate” from the departmental authorities. It is submitted that the B.Ed. degree obtained by the appellant continues to remain valid. The appellant projects that, thereafter, he had, in his personal academic interest, enrolled again for a B.Ed. course at Nityanand Mahavidyalaya College, Lakhna, Etawah, affiliated to Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur. It is projected that the appellant, already having a B.Ed. degree from CMJ University, acquiring a subsequent degree was of no consequence, insofar as his service career was concerned. 7. The respondent authorities, by reckoning the seniority of the appellant as a PGT w.e.f. 30-04-2003, proceeded to assign to him his due seniority in the Provisional Gradation List of Teachers so published. The appellant projects that, in pursuance of the directions passed by this Court Page No.# 5/22 vide order dated 04-09-2013 in W.P.(C) No. 107/2012, the promotion effected in respect of the appellant to the cadre of Principal/ Senior Principal and also his placement at Sl. No. 1 in the Gradation List so published, had so occasioned in the year 2014-15. The appellant, accordingly, projects that in the year 2020, aggrieved by the seniority position assigned to him, some of the colleagues of the appellant had filed a complaint before the Upa Lokayukta questioning the B.Ed. degree possessed by the appellant and further alleging that the promotion so granted to the appellant to the cadre of Principal/ Senior Principal was irregular, on account of absence of a valid B.Ed. qualification. The Upa Lokayukta, vide order dated 20-08-2021, on an examination of the complaint made before it, decided to proceed against the appellant, herein, for committing fraud by submitting a fake certificate of B.Ed. 8. The Investigating Officer of the Commission was directed to seize the relevant educational qualification certificates of the appellant, including his B.Ed. degree certificate. Further, an affidavit from the appellant with regard to the fake certificate submitted by him was also required to be procured. The appellant submitted his affidavit in the matter and denied the presumption drawn against him in the matter by the Commission. The Commission, thereafter, vide an order dated 20-08-2021, proceeded to make a recommendation to the Department of School Education to review the officiating promotion effected in respect of the appellant vide notification dated 17-07-2014 and to submit a report thereon. It was further provided Page No.# 6/22 that the final recommendation shall follow, after verification of the B.Ed. degree obtained from the CMJ University, Shillong during the year 2010-13, which was placed before the Commission by way of an affidavit by the appellant. In pursuance of the directions passed by the Commission, the Department of School Education issued a show-cause notice dated 08-02- 2022 to the appellant to submit his reply thereto, with regard to submission of fake B.Ed. degree certificate issued by the Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University. It was projected that there was reasonable ground to believe that the appellant had utilized a fake document and misled the Government for availing undue service benefits. The appellant submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice. Thereafter, vide notification dated 24-03-2023, in terms of the interim recommendation made by the Upa Lokayukta, Nagaland, vide order dated 20-08-2021, the officiating promotion effected in respect of the appellant to the post of Principal vide notification dated 17-07-2014, came to be revoked. Being aggrieved, the appellant had moved before the learned Single Judge by way of instituting a writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 50/2023. 9. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant, at the outset has submitted that the action taken in the matter by the Department of School Education was not an action so taken by it of its own course, but was so taken based on an interim recommendation made by the Upa Lokayukta in a case registered before it basing on complaints made by the private respondents. Mr. Jamir, by referring to the complaints so preferred before the Lokayukta, including the Form-1 so filed by the complainants, has Page No.# 7/22 submitted that the same would go to reveal that what was actually raised before the Commission was a service-related grievance of the complainants and not an allegation against the appellant, herein. By referring to the provisions of the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2017), Mr. Jamir has submitted that the complaint so preferred was not permissible to be considered by the Upa Lokayukta, in view of the clear bar existing in entertaining such complaints under the provisions of Section 9 of the said Act read with the Second Schedule, thereto. By referring to Section 9, Mr. Jamir has submitted that the Upa Lokayukta did not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action which is covered by the provisions of the Second Schedule. He submits that the complainants having an alternative forum or authority for remedy of their grievance, such complaint was not to be entertained by the Upa Lokayukta. Referring to the Second Schedule of the Act of 2017, the learned Sr. counsel for the appellant submits that the complaint raised by the private respondents is covered by Clause-(s), thereto, and the same being in relation to service conditions of the appellant and the complainants, the Upa Lokayukta did not have the jurisdiction to entertain such complaints. Mr. Jamir, again referring to the complaints raised by the private respondents, has submitted that a perusal of the same would reveal that there is no allegation therein of any Mal-Administration. He submits that while the allegations were levelled against the appellant, no allegation of similar nature came to be levelled against any other Government servant, of having committed an offence punishable under the Page No.# 8/22 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or of having carried out an action which was discriminatory towards the complainants. Accordingly, it is submitted that the interim direction and the consequential actions taken, thereon, by the departmental authorities are bad in law. 10. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel, for the appellant submits that before the learned Single Judge it was urged by the appellant that the complaint made before the Upa Lokayukta being in the nature of grievance pertaining to a service dispute and not an allegation, the Upa Lokayukta in terms of the provisions of Section 9 did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the same. Mr. Jamir, by referring to paragraph 25 of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, submits that the learned Single Judge, on consideration of the matter, had concluded that the complaint raised by the complainants was actually in the nature of a grievance only and that they were aggrieved by the seniority position assigned to the appellant over them. By referring to the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 9 of the Act of 2017, he submits that, a time limit has been set out, therein, for institution of a complaint before the Upa Lokayukta, the learned Single Judge had also noticed that the complaints so raised by the private respondents, were so raised beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Sub-Section (3) of Section 9. He, however, submits that in spite of noticing the said position, the learned Single Judge had proceeded to permit the Upa Lokayukta to proceed with the investigation underway by it and to dispose of the complaint(s). Page No.# 9/22 11. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant, submits that the learned Single Judge erred in proceeding to permit the Upa Lokayukta to proceed with the complaint before it, after having noticed that the said complaint only involved a grievance pertaining to a service dispute. He submits that, in fact, the learned Single Judge had conferred jurisdiction upon the Upa Lokayukta in the matter when the Act of 2017 had clearly barred such investigation by the Upa Lokayukta. 12. In the above premises, Mr. Jamir submits that the impugned judgment and order dated 13-08-2025 would mandate an interference from this Court. 13. Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4, i.e. the Nagaland Lokayukta has submitted that a perusal of the complaint petition would reveal that, therein, an allegation of an act of corruption has been made against the appellant, herein, with or without connivance of the officials of the department. He, accordingly, submits that the said complaint cannot be treated as a mere grievance; rather, there being an allegation of the manner in which the fake B.Ed. degree submitted by the appellant was accepted by the authorities, the complaint is in the form of an allegation, and accordingly, the bar for an investigation into the same by the Lokayukta/ Upa Lokayukta under Section 9 of the Act is not attracted. Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent No. 4, has further submitted that the complainants in the complaint, while raising a grievance with regard to their supersession by the appellant herein, also levelled an allegation that the Page No.# 10/22 appellant resorted to unfair means for the purpose of procuring his B.Ed. degree and utilizing the same for advancement in his service career. He submits that the said complaint had raised a clear allegation against the appellant herein. He further submits that even if it is to be deemed that the complaint is an amalgamation of a grievance and an allegation, by referring to a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Vishwasrao Chudaman Patil Vs. Lokayukta, State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 1985 MhLJ 54, submits that, as the allegation is a part of the said complaint, the bar under Section 9 of the Act of 2017 would not be attracted and an investigation in the matter would be permissible to be undertaken by the Upa Lokayukta. 14. Mr. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent No. 4, has further submitted that the challenge in the writ petition was to the interim direction issued by the Upa Lokayukta vide order dated 28-01-2021 and the consequential order passed by the Upa Lokayukta on 20-08-2021 was not assailed. He submits that the impugned notification dated 24-03-2023, whereby the officiating promotion of the appellant stood revoked, was, in fact, pursuant to the order dated 20-08-2021. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents has adopted the submission made by the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4, and submitted that the complainants in question had alleged that the appellant, herein, had submitted a dubious B.Ed. certificate acquired by a course of study in the regular mode, which was not Page No.# 11/22 permissible, inasmuch as the said B.Ed. degree was pursued by the appellant without availing any study leave for the purpose. He submits that, given the manner in which the B.Ed. degree certificate of the appellant was so acquired, the same reveals misconduct being committed in the matter by the appellant and accordingly, the complaint lodged in the matter before the Lokayukta would not be barred by the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 2017. The learned counsel for the private respondents has further submitted that the appellant is found to have projected that he had obtained the B.Ed. degree from CMJ University in the year 2011 and thereafter, again admitted to having obtained a B.Ed. degree certificate from the Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur during the period 2014 to 2016 and submitted the same to the department after 10-10-2018. No leave is found to have been availed by the appellant for pursuing the said two B.Ed. degrees by him and accordingly, it is evident that the appellant had used dubious means with the intention to avail undue service benefits. He further submits that the appellant had not approached this Court with clean hands. He submits that the learned Single Judge, after noticing the position obtaining in the matter, had correctly permitted the Upa Lokayukta to proceed with the complaint pending before it and to arrive at a conclusion thereon. He submits that the learned Single Judge, having also required the maintainability of the said complaint before the Upa Lokayukta to be considered, it is open for the appellant to raise the same before the Upa Lokayukta and accordingly, no prejudice is found to have been caused to the appellant. He, therefore, submits that the judgment and order passed by the Page No.# 12/22 learned Single Judge would not mandate any interference. 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 17. The issue that arises for consideration before this Court in the present writ appeal is as to whether the complaint made before the Upa Lokayukta was barred by the provision of Section 9 of the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017, read with the Second Schedule, thereof. 18. Section 2(1)(f) of the Act of 2017 defines ‘complaint’ to mean a complaint made in such form as may be prescribed, alleging that a public servant has committed an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 2(1)(g) defines ‘grievance’ to mean a claim by a person that he suffered injustice or hardship as a consequence of maladministration. While ‘Mal-administration’ has been defined under the provision of 2(1)(k) to mean action taken or purported to have been taken, or failed to have been taken, where such action or failure is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improper or discriminatory or with undue delay or negligent or distortive of procedures, practices etc., governing such actions. 19. Section 9 mandates matters which are not subject to investigation by the Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta, as the case may be. Section 9 of the said Act being relevant is extracted here-in-below: “Section - 9: Matters not subject to Investigation : (1) Except as hereinafter provided, the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta shall not conduct any investigation under this Act in the cases of a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action: Page No.# 13/22 (a) If such action relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule; or (b) If the complainant has or had any remedy by way of a proceeding before any forum or other authority; Provided that nothing in clause (b) shall prevent the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta from conducting an investigation, if the Lokayukta or, as the case may be, the Upa-Lokayukta, is satisfied that such person could not or cannot, for sufficient cause, have recourse to such remedy. (2) The Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta shall not investigate: (a) Any action in respect of which a formal and public inquiry has been ordered under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 by the State Government or Government of India; (b) Any action in respect of a matter which has been referred for inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 by the State Government or Government of India. (3) The Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta shall not investigate – (a) Any complaint involving a grievance made after the expiry of a period of twelve months limitation from the date on which the action complained against becomes known to the complainant. (b) Any complaint involving an allegation made after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action or conduct complained against is alleged to have taken place. Provided that the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta in respect of grievance or allegation, as the case may be, may entertain a complaint made after the expiry of the said period if the complainant shows sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the said period. (4) In the case of any complaint involving a grievance, nothing in this Act shall be construed as empowering the Lokayukta or Upa- Lokayukta to question any administrative action involving the exercise of a discretion except where he is satisfied that the elements involved in the exercise of the discretion are absent to such extent that the discretion can prima facie be regarded as having been improperly exercised.” 20. As Section 9(1)(a) refers to the Second Schedule to the Act of 2017, the provisions thereof, being relevant, is extracted here-in-below:- “SECOND SCHEDULE Page No.# 14/22 [See Section 9(1)(a)] (a) Action taken for the purpose of investigating crimes or relating to the security of the State. (b) Action taken in the exercise of powers in relation to determining whether a matter shall go to a Court of not. (c) Action taken in matters which arise out of the terms of a contact governing purely commercial relations of the administration with customers of supplier, except whose or the complaint alleges harassment gross delay in meeting contractual obligation. (d) Action taken in respect of appointments, removal, pay, discipline, superannuation or other matters relating to conditions of service of public servants but not including action relating to claims for pension, gratuity, provident fund or to any claim which arise on retirement, removal on termination of service and such other action involving allegation of corruption in respect of appointment not barred under provision of section-35 of the Act. (e) Grant of honours and award.” 21. Section 8 of the said Act of 2017 mandates that, subject to the provisions of the Act of 2017, the Lokayukta may investigate any action which is taken by or with the general or specified approval of the authority set out, therein. 22. Having noticed the provisions of the Act of 2017, applicable to the present proceeding, we would now proceed to examine the complaint lodged by the respondents against the appellant. On perusal of the complaint lodged by the respondents against the appellant, we are of the view that the respondents have basically raised a grievance with regard to the seniority assigned to the appellant over them in service. The complainants in this connection had contended that the B.Ed. degree certificate issued to the appellant by the Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University was not genuine, and by relying on the said certificate it was not Page No.# 15/22 permissible to promote the appellant to the cadre of Principal by placing him above the respondents. On a close perusal of the complaints in the matter against the appellant, this Court does not find that, therein, any allegation of corruption, punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was levelled. We further have not found any allegation of mal- administration being levelled in the matter; rather, the allegations as levelled are qua the appellant only and not against any other official of the Education Department. There is no allegation against any officer of the Education Department of having committed corruption in proceeding to grant the appellant retrospective promotion. Accordingly, on a close perusal of the complaint, we are of the considered view that it only raised a grievance of the appellant being granted seniority over the respondents. In other words, it raised a grievance pertaining to a service dispute. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the said complaint, in terms of the provision of Section 9(1)(a) of the Act of 2017 read with the provision of Clause-(d) of the Second Schedule to the said Act, was not permissible to be so investigated by the Upa Lokayukta. 23. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 13-08-2025, on consideration of the same very materials, had drawn the following conclusions:- “25. A perusal of the complaint dated 26.05.2020 which is enclosed as Annexure-C to the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondents No. 5 to 9 reflects that the respondents No. 5 to 9 along with other complainants are all employees of the Department of Education as their primary grievance against the writ appellant is that he was officiating promotion to the post of Principal from his earlier Page No.# 16/22 post of PGT whereas the feeder post for promotion to the post of Principal is that of a Vice Principal and all the complainants including the private respondents No. 5 to 9 are regular vice Principals. It is alleged in the complaint that upon verification made on the website of Nityanand Mahavidyalaya, Lakhna, Etawah, Chhatrapatir Sahooji Maharaj University, Kanpur (CSMU) or (CSJMU), Uttar Pradesh. The website did not reflect the Roll No. of the appellant in respect of the B.Ed Degree that the appellant claimed to have completed and furthermore the university did not offer distance education courses including that of B.Ed. The further allegation in the complaint is that the ex-post facto approval given by the Director in favour of the appellant and other persons regarding completion of the B.Ed Degree is not in order as the concerned official is not the appropriate authority for issuance of such an order. From the complaint, it is seen that the complainants are aggrieved by the seniority given to the appellant which it is alleged that the appellant was allowed to incorrectly supersede the complainants including the respondents No. 5 to 9. There is no explanation as to why the complaint was filed in the year 2020 when the allegation made against the appellant is in respect of the officiating promotion given to the appellant as Principal in the year 2014. The grievance of the appellant being Senior or wrongly given the benefit of seniority over the complainants including the private respondents No. 5 to 9 is also prima facie not open to re- consideration by the department or the Upa-Lokayukta in view of the said issue already decided in an earlier writ petition filed by the appellant being W.P(C) No. 107(K)/2012 decided on 04.09.2013. No materials has been placed before this Court by the parties before the Court to suggest that this order has been reversed by any higher Court. Consequently this order has attained finality.” 24. On a perusal of the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 25, it would be evident that the learned Single Judge had also concluded that the complainants were aggrieved by the seniority given to the appellant herein. Accordingly, it was held that the complainants had a grievance of the appellant being wrongly given the benefit of seniority over them. The learned Single Judge further proceeded to conclude that the seniority granted to the appellant was, prima facie, not open for reconsideration by the department or Upa Lokayukta, in view of the fact that the said issue was already decided in an earlier writ petition filed by the Page No.# 17/22 appellant herein, being W.P.(C) No. 107/2012 decided on 04-09-2013. 25. The learned Single Judge, having already concluded that the complainant had only raised a grievance in the matter, ought to have proceeded to quash the proceedings before the Upa Lokayukta. However, the learned Single Judge, having drawn the said conclusion, proceeded to draw the following further conclusions in the matter. 26. The Upa-Lokayukta is a statutory body constituted under the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017 and to investigate into the matters which are prescribed under Section 8 of the Act. For convenience, Section 8 is extracted below: “Section - 8: Matters which may be investigated by Lokayukta or UpaLokayukta. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Lokayukta may investigate any action which is taken, by or with the general or specific approval of (a) The Chief Minister or a Minister or a Secretary; (b) A member of the State Legislature; (c) Vice-Chancellor or Registrar of a University; (d) The Chairman and Vice-Chairman (by whatever name called) or a member of an Authority, Board, or a Committee, a Statutory or non-statutory Body or a Corporation established by or under any law of the State Legislature. (e) Any other public servant. (e) Any other public servant. (2) The Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta may, if he thinks fit, investigate an action taken by or with the general or specific approval of a public functionary, if it is referred to him by the State Government. (3) The Lokayukta may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, investigate any action which may be investigated by an Upa-Lokayukta whether or not a complaint has been made to the Lokayukta in respect of such action.” 27. The matter, which is required to be investigated by the Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta, clearly falls under Section 8 of the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017, as extracted above. Under Section 8(1) of the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017, Lokayukta may investigate Page No.# 18/22 any action which is taken up or with general or specific approval of the authorities specified under Clauses (i) to (e) of Section 8(1). The Lokayukta may also investigate an action if things fit with the general or the specific approval of a public functionary if it is referred to him by the State Government. The Lokayukta may also for reasons to be recorded in writing, investigate any action which may be investigated by an Upa-Lokayukta whether or not, a complaint has been made to the Lokayukta in respect of such action. 28. From the discussions made hereinabove, it is seen that the order taking cognizance by the Upa-Lokayukta dated 28.01.2021 and proceeding to investigate the matter in respect of the writ appellant appears to have taken cognizance without the materials being available to proceed against the writ petitioner. The direction to have the matter investigated by the investigating officer appears to have been undertaken upon a decision by the Upa-Lokayukta to “proceed against the appellant for committing fraud by submitting a fake certificate of B.Ed”. It would appear upon a plain reading of the order that the Upa-Lokayukta proceeded to take cognizance of a complaint by a prima facie finding that the appellant committed fraud by submitting a fake certificate of B.Ed and thereupon directed the I.O to seized or collect the letter submitted by the petitioner. Subsequently, upon the affidavits and objections being exchanged, the Upa- Lokayukta passed the order dated 20.08.2021 given an interim recommendation to the respondent authorities to recall the order of officiating promotion to the post of Principal. The order dated 20.08.2021 is an interim recommendation and the matter is presently is pending before the Lokayukta. 29. Perusal of both the orders dated 28.01.2021 and 20.08.2021 which are available before the Court do not reflect that the Lokayukta has proceeded to examine the maintainability of the complaint filed by the private respondents No. 5 to 9 from the stand point of Section 8 and Section 9(3) of the Act. It was incumbent on the Upa- Lokayukta to examine the complaint filed by the complainants in view of the expressed provisions of Section 8 and Section 9(3) and thereafter proceed to pass orders as to whether the Upa-Lokayukta should take cognizance the complaint and proceed for passing interim recommendation. Notwithstanding that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the writ appellant that appellant has resorted to fraud in respect of the B.Ed Certificate submitted by him to the Department and which certificate was taken into account for giving him the officiating promotion to the post of Principal as also no specific order having been issued by the department and/or relied upon by the appellant to show that where the feeder category for promotion to the higher post of Principal is post of Vice Principal whether the appellant could have been considered for promotion to the post of Principal from his present post of Post Graduate Teacher. Page No.# 19/22 The Court refrains from expressing any opinion on merit as these matters are presently under the scrutiny of the Upa-Lokayukta as well as by the Department by way of the departmental proceedings initiated against the appellant and which departmental proceedings has not presently assailed in the present proceedings. 30. The allegations made against the appellant are grave and serious and it appears that the department did not initiate any departmental proceedings with regard to the controversy at hand namely, the verification of the genuineness of the certificate of B.Ed degree which course the appellant claims to have been successfully undergone from the CSJM University, Kanpur. There is also no material placed before the Court to show if any order(s) are passed by the School Education Department pursuant to the process of verification of educational qualification/certificates of the employees under the Department more particularly with respect to the petitioner. There are also no materials which suggest that any such enquiry was undertaken by the State Department and that no infirmity was found in so far as the certificate of B.Ed degree issued by the CSJM University which was submitted by the petitioner. Under such circumstances and in view of any specific facts before the Court, this Court is disinclined to issue a writ and/or any direction interfering with the proceedings undertaken by the UpaLokayukta followed by and/or the consequential order of revocation of the officiating promotion granted to the appellant pursuant to the directions issued by the Upa-Lokayukta. 31. In that view of the matter, considering the fact that the UpaLokayukta is seized of the matter at present and the interim recommendation passed on 28.01.2021 is subject to such final recommendation being passed by the Upa-Lokayukta, this Court at this stage refrains from interfering with the orders passed by the UpaLokayukta and/or the Department by the Notification dated 24.03.2023 whereby the petitioner’s officiating promotion was revoked. This Court expresses hope that the Upa-Lokayukta will expeditiously consider the matter in its entirety and dispose of the complaint finally by a speaking order within a period of 60 (Sixty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. This Court hopes that the Upa-Lokayukta while considering the matter in its entirety and disposing of by a speaking order, will also examine the scope of passing any such recommendations, in view of the prescriptions under Section 8 read with Section 9(3). This Court hopes that the Upa-Lokayukta being a statutory authority will consider this aspects and pass appropriate orders. 26. A perusal of the said conclusions would go to reveal that the learned Page No.# 20/22 Single Judge only on the ground that the departmental authorities had not taken any steps for verification of the educational and professional qualification of the appellant, herein, and further noticing that the said complaint was pending before the Upa Lokayukat for passing final recommendation in the matter, directed the Upa Lokayukta also to consider the scope of passing any recommendation in the matter by it, in view of the prescriptions under Section 8 read with Section 9(3) of the Act of 2017. A perusal of the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 26 to 31 of the impugned judgment would go to reveal that by directing the Upa Lokayukta to continue with the investigation into the complaint lodged before it, has proceeded to confer jurisdiction upon the Upa Lokayukta in the matter, which was clearly impermissible, inasmuch as, the Upa Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to investigate matters covered by the provision of Section 9 read with Second Schedule of the Act of 2017. 27. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that the directions passed by the learned Single Judge permitting the Upa Lokayukta to continue with the investigation in the matter and issue its final recommendation therein, after having held that the complaint raised against the appellant before it only pertains to a grievance relating to a service dispute, were clearly erroneous. 28. For the reasons assigned hereinabove, the judgment and order dated 13-08-2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 50/2023, in our considered view, would mandate an interference. Accordingly, the said Page No.# 21/22 judgment and order dated 13-08-2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 50/2023 stands set aside. 29. Consequently, the proceedings pending before the Upa Lokayukta, based on the complaints lodged in the matter against the appellant, also stand set aside. 30. Having interfered with the impugned judgment and order dated 13- 08-2025, as well as the proceedings pending before the Upa Lokayukta in the matter, considering the fact that there exists an allegation of the appellant having submitted the fake/ forged B.Ed. degree for the purpose of availing advancement in his service career, we direct the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of School Education, to institute appropriate proceedings against the appellant, herein, for determination as to whether the B.Ed. degree furnished by him from the CMJ University as well as from the Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University were genuine and can be reckoned for the purpose of granting him promotion to the next higher grade, including the cadre of Principal. Needless to say, such verification shall be undertaken by the said authority strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant herein. Such proceeding be instituted expeditiously and final order passed, thereon, within a period of 06 (six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 31. The notification dated 24-03-2023, revoking the officiating promotion effected in respect of the appellant from the cadre of PGT to the cadre of Page No.# 22/22 Principal vide notification dated 17-07-2014, is not interfered with and the same shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings now required to be instituted by the respondent authorities, for determination of the validity of the B.Ed. certificates possessed by the appellant. 32. With the above observations and directions, the present writ appeal stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant