IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34695 of 2009(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JOHNY V.D., LOWER DIVISION CLERK, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, NH DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LA) III, CHEMBUKKAVU, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHUR. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NATIONAL HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT III, CHEMBUKKAVU, TRICHUR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.34695/2009-F: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF VILLAGE OFFICER TEST (TRAVANCORE) CONDUCTED BY PSC IN DECEMBER 2005. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REVENUE TEST CONDUCTED BY PSC IN THE YEAR 2003 AND 05. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ACCOUNT TEST LOWER CONDUCTED BY PSC IN JANUARY 2005. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF DISTRICT OFFICES MANUEL TEST CONDUCTED BY PSC IN DECEMBER 2003. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF GENERAL SURVEY TEST CONDUCTED BY SURVEY DEPARTMENT. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. ON 22/08/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34695 OF 2009 (f) ===================== Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he is a Lower Division Clerk in the office of the 3rd respondent. His grievance is regarding the alleged delay in declaring his probation. According to the petitioner, as evidenced by Exts.P1 to P5, though belatedly, he passed all the test qualifications, and therefore, is entitled to have his probation declared. It is stated that in this behalf, though he had filed Ext.P6 representation before the 1st respondent, orders on that also have not been passed. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 2. In the facts as stated above, the grievance of the writ petitioner will be redressed if the 1st respondent considers Ext.P6. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P6 in the light of Exts.P1 to P5 and orders thereon on shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp