Jayarani M.P. v. The Director, Akshaya State Project Office, Kozhikode and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1945** **WA NO. 1359 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.07.2023 IN WP(C) 19499/2023** **OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WP(c):** JAYARANI M.P AGED 40 YEARS W/O ANOOP M., MOOLATH HOUSE, MUKKAM P. O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673602 BY ADVS. ADITHYA RAJEEV S.PARVATHI ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP(C):** 1 THE DIRECTOR, AKSHAYA STATE PROJECT OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, 'SANGETHIKA', VRINDAVAN GARDENS, PATTOM P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004 2 THE APPEAL COMMITTEE AKSHAYA PROJECT KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COLLECTOR & CHIEF CO-ORDINATOR AKSHAYA, AKSHAYA DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICE 2ND FLOOR, ZAMORIN SQUARE BUILDING, RAILWAY STATION LINK ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673002 3 THE DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGER, AKSHAYA DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, ZAMORIN SQUARE BUILDING, RAILWAY STATION LINK ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673002 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI. SAIGI JACOB PALATTY-SR. GP THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS & C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.** ## **---------------------------------------------------** W.A. No. 1359 of 2023 _[arising out of the impugned judgment dated 11.07.2023 in WP(C)No.19499/2022 ]_ **------------------------------------------------** Dated this the 31[st] day of July, 2023 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **C.Jayachandran,J.** **==> picture [399 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** W.P(C)No.19499/2023 of the learned Single Judge is under challenge in this writ appeal, as per which, the petitioner's challenge to Ext.P11 order of the 1[st] respondent (the Director, Akshaya State Project Office) was dismissed as time barred. **==> picture [128 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** The petitioner was one among the applicants for starting a new Akshaya centre at Manassery, Kozhikode. She participated in the selection process, appeared in the written examination on ## W.A.No.1359/2023 ## -: 2 :- 29.04.2022 and attended the interview on 24.09.2022. However, the petitioner did not receive any communication as regards the publication of rank list. On 21.10.2022, the petitioner approached the office of Mukkam Muncipality, where she saw Ext.P3 provisional ranked list published in the notice board, as per which, she was ranked 2[nd] . The petitioner had more marks than the candidate ranked 1[st] in the written examination, as also, in the marks awarded in the relation to the application form. However, she was given only 16.8 marks in the interview, deliberately to promote the candidate ranked first, namely Shyma Chandrasekharan. These facts are decipherable from Ext.P4 reply under the Right to Information Act. The ranked list was not published online, so as to preclude the petitioner's opportunity to prefer an appeal. The ## W.A.No.1359/2023 ## -: 3 :- petitioner preferred Ext.P5 complaint/1[st] appeal within the time frame stipulated before the District Collect & Chief Co-ordinator Akshaya, who is the Chairman of the 2[nd] respondent Appeal Committee. The petitioner aired her doubt of political interference of the matter and questioned the parameters which pushed her down to the 2[nd] position. She was called for a personal hearing on 24.11.2022, vide Ext.P6 communication. However, no communication was issued to the petitioner as regards the outcome of Ext.P5 appeal, despite the lapse of more than 5 months. The petitioner approached the office of the District Collector and by virtue of Ext.P7, the 3[rd] respondent was directed to inform the outcome of her complaint/appeal within a period of two days. Accordingly, Ext.P8 communication was issued to the petitioner by the 3[rd] respondent intimating ## W.A.No.1359/2023 ## -: 4 :- that her appeal was dismissed and that the same was communicated to her through the official mail of the District Project Office of Akshaya. A copy of the Ext.P9 appellate order dated 12.12.2022 issued by the 2[nd] respondent Collector was also appended along with Ext.P8. Immediately thereupon, the petitioner preferred Ext.P10 second appeal before the 1[st] respondent Director of the Akshaya State Project Office on 16.05.2023. Vide Ext.P11, the second appeal was rejected stating that the same was not preferred within the stipulated period of 7 days from the date of Ext.P9 order. The petitioner was not afforded with an opportunity of being heard. It is accordingly, that the petitioner approached the Writ Court challenging Ext.P11 appellate order, dismissing the second appeal. ## W.A.No.1359/2023 ## -: 5 :- 3. On behalf of the respondents, it was contented that, in her application for the Akshaya project franchise, the petitioner had provided her email ID and Ext.P9 order was communicated through email in the ID provided, on 12.12.2022 at 03.34 p.m., which fact is not disputed by the petitioner. Inasmuch as, Ext.P10 appeal is not preferred within the stipulated time frame, Ext.P11 order cannot be faulted with and the petitioner cannot insist for issuance of a hard copy of Ext.P9. 4. Accepting the contentions of the respondents the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal. 5. Having heard Sri.Adithya Rajeev, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents, we find no ground to ## W.A.No.1359/2023 ## -: 6 :- interfere with the judgment impugned of the learned Single Judge. Primarily, we take note of the significance of the Akshaya Project, the franchise of which the petitioner had applied for. Akshaya is essentially an online platform to render effective assistance to the public in maters of various service from Government Departments. The same is part of the computerization mission of the State Government for effective ease of governance and administration. Needless to say that, all communications in respect of the services are aired online and a franchise is expected to be fully conversant with the online methods of communication, besides being alert and prompt in receiving and sending the requisite information/application through online mode. In the instant case, as rightly contended by the ## W.A.No.1359/2023 ## -: 7 :- respondents, and accepted by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner did not dispute the factum of receipt of Ext.P9 order through the email ID provided in her application for franchise. Her contention that, she is entitled to be issued with Ext.P9 order by post, since some other communications were received by her by post, can hardly be countenanced. An applicant seeking either a job, or for that matter, a franchise of a project like Akshaya, should be vigilant, especially when the email ID is specifically sought for, as a particular to be furnished along with the application form, thereby giving a clear indication that future correspondence can be via email through the ID provided. Profitable reference in this regard can be made to a Full Bench decision of this Court in **Kerala Public Service Commission v. Resmi K.R and others -** ILR ## W.A.No.1359/2023 ## -: 8 :- 2019 (4) Kerala 878. This is all the more so, in the case of a person seeking a franchise of an Akshaya centre, as indicated above. The applicant had failed to perform her duty, especially when the factum of communication of Ext.P9 order via email is not disputed. 6. We are given to understand that the franchise has been allotted to the 1[st] rank holder, an agreement has been duly entered into and Akshaya center had already started functioning. Ext.P9 is dated 12.12.2022 and as such Ext.P10 appeal ought to have been preferred within 7 days. However, the same is seen preferred only on 12.05.2023, that is to say, with a delay of more than four and half months. In these circumstances, we cannot say that the rejection of the second appeal preferred by the petitioner vide Ext.P11 order as time barred, is ## W.A.No.1359/2023 -: 9 :- illegal or unjustified. Consequently, there exists no ground to interfere with the judgment impugned of the learned Single Judge. In the result, the instant writ appeal fails and will stand dismissed. Sd/- ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** Sd/- ## **C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE** TR2023