Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1945 PETITIONER/S: ARJUN PRADEEP, S./O PRADEEP P.T PAYYALAZHIKOM, MUNDROTHURATHU, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.R.KISHORE SRI.ARUN BABU SRI.G.HARIPRASAD RESPONDENT/S:
1 DIRECTOR HILL VIEW, VELLAYAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 DIRECTOR KERALA STATE IT MISSION O/O KERALA STATE IT MISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3 DISTRICT CO.ORDINATOR AKSHAYA DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, CORPORATION BUILDING, ANDAMUKKAM, KOLLAM. 4 BINNY S. KOCHODUKATH NENMENI, MUNDROTHURATHU P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.CHITHRA.S.BABU GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. JUSTIN JACOB SRI.K.SIJU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who was unsuccessful in the allotment process of Akshaya Centre.
2. Vide order dated 31.7.2007, Ext.P1 the Government of Kerala approved the modified selection process for selection of Entrepreneurs for Akshaya Project headed by the Director, Kerala
State IT Mission, 2nd respondent. The said selection process involved three levels. The 1 st level was the screening process of the application, the second Written Test and the third Level interview. The weightage mark for the different levels was 30%, 40% and 30%. Petitioner had applied for the post of Akshaya Entrepreneur Selection Exam at Canara Bank Jn being M.Tech in Sardar Raja
College of Engineering. Along with the aforementioned
application, credentials were also enclosed. The petitioner scored 16.8 in the Form screening stage and 23 marks in the written exam whereas the 4th respondent, selected candidate scored only 11.1 in the Form Screening Stage and 12 marks in the written exam. The 4th respondent did not own or possess any building as in the case of the petitioner, which was also one of the qualifying criteria for the
selection. In interview conducted by the panel consisting of an Officer from the Akshaya, Mundrothurathu Panchayath Secretary and Chittumala Block member, petitioner had answered all the questions and none of the other members of the interview board cared to ask more questions to the petitioner. When the provisional marklist was published it was seen that the 4 th
respondent had secured the 1 st rank over the petitioner who secured 2nd rank. An appeal was preferred before the appellate committee of Akshaya dated 27.9.2013, Ext.P3. Petitioner
appeared before the appelate committee on 8.10.2013, but no orders were passed or communicated.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that the action of the respondents 1, 2 and 3 in granting the selection to the 4th respondent as the entrepreneur of Akshaya at the Canara Bank Jn Mundrothurathu, even before Ext.P3 appeal
was decided is wholly arbitrary and illegal. 4 th respondent had scored very less marks when compared to the petitioner. Ext.P1 clearly stipulated that at the time of interview managerial, marketing, administration and financial skills of the applicants were to be evaluated. There was illegality in allotting marks to the 4th respondent.
4. On the other hand, as per the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the 3rd respondent, District Co-ordinator, Akshaya District Project Office, it was asserted that the weightage marks proposed for the three stages of the selection process were 30%, 40% and 30%. Selection process had taken place at fifty two (52) various locations, Canara Bank Jn of Mundrothurathu was one among them. Non possession of a building is not a disqualification for the person
to become an Akshaya entrepreneur. After the publication of the temporary rank list, appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed to be on the baseless grounds and the copy of the decision was also communicated. The final rank list was approved
only on 24.10.2013. The 4th respondent contested the aforementioned writ petition on the ground that she belongs to a BPL family and applied for the allotment of Akshaya centre to start her own entrepreneurship whereas the petitioner was pursuing his M Tech student at Tamilnadu. 4th respondent had already availed building on rent to start the Akshaya centre and executed rent deed
with the land lord on 25.10.2013. At the relevant point of time, was unemployed housewife. Being a women graduate entrepreneur from same panchayath was entitled for weightage. She is having computer education having diploma in MS office and DTP Malayalam and English. The appeal was dismissed and the decision was communicated but the same has not been disclosed in the present writ petition. Petitioner had already participated in the interview but did not challenge the same and only thereafter has challenged the same, which is not permissible in law.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submissions. Petitioner has not been fair and honest to this Court in disclosing the decision of the appeal filed before the committee. Rank list was finalized thereafter. It is settled law that the person who participated in the selection process cannot thereafter challenge the criteria of awarding the marks. 4 th respondent stood as a first rank holder whereas the petitioner, 2 nd rank holder. It is a matter of luck that the other selected candidate had secured more marks. Appellate authority had already examined the matter threadbare. This Court cannot sit in the armchair of expert and examine the credentials of the parties until and unless there is a gross illegality or perversity in the aforementioned orders or the selection process which has not been pointed out except that he was more qualified than the 4 th respondent. This Court had also not interdicted the selection process or nor any interim order was passed. No ground for interference is made out. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sab AMIT RAWAL JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25701/2013 PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS)NO.17/2007/ITD DATED 31.7.2007 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL RANK LIST FOR THE AKSHAYA ENTREPRENEURS PUBLISHED IN THE AKSHAYA WEBSITE. EXHIBIT P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 27.9.2013. EXHIBIT P4: THE TURE COPY OF THE FINAL MARKLIST OF THE PETITIONER IN THE AKSHAYA ENTREPRENEUR SELECTION EXAM. EXHIBIT P5: TRHE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL MARKLIST OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE AKSHAYA ENTREPRENEUR SELECTION EXAM.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: Exhibit.R4(a): The copy of communication dated 24.10.2013 issued to the 4th respondent Exhibit.R4(b): The copy of ranked list published by the 3rd respondent regarding the allotment of Akshaya centre Exhibit.R4(c): The copy of rent deed dated 25.10.2013 executed by the 4th respondent Exhibit.R4(d): The copy of letter dated 25.10.2013 issued by the 3rd respondent