Strict statutory definition of public servant limits Lokayukta jurisdiction over cooperative society and transport corporation employees.

Jurisdiction under the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act extends only to persons who strictly fall within the statutory definition of "public servant". Officers and employees of cooperative societies were outside that definition because they were not appointed to a State public service or post, and the chief executive officer, clerk and business manager were not shown to be chairmen or presidents of the governing body. Employees of the road transport corporation were also outside the definition, as the divisional manager and dispensary doctor were not at the helm of its management. The Lokayukta therefore lacked jurisdiction to investigate the complaints.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents, employed as officers or employees of cooperative societies and a road transport corporation, fell within the definition of "public servant" under the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983 so as to attract the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta under Section 7(1)(iv).

Analysis: The Act permits investigation only into the action of a public servant as defined in Section 2(k). A person can be treated as an "officer" under Section 2(i) only if appointed to a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the State, which the respondents were not. The respondent who was a chief executive officer of a cooperative union was not the chairman or president of its governing body and therefore did not fall within Section 2(k)(v)(5). The clerk and the business manager of cooperative societies likewise were not shown to be chairmen or presidents and were outside the statutory definition. As regards the road transport corporation employees, even assuming the corporation could fall within Section 2(k)(v)(2), the divisional manager and the doctor attached to the dispensary were not persons at the helm of the governing body or management of the corporation.

Conclusion: The respondents were outside the purview of the definition of "public servant" and their actions were not amenable to investigation by the Lokayukta under the Act.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the High Court was correct in holding that the Lokayukta lacked jurisdiction over the complaints against the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: Jurisdiction under the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act extends only to persons who strictly answer the statutory definition of "public servant", and the definition cannot be enlarged beyond its express terms by invoking a broad or beneficial construction.

---