IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34152 of 2010(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- K.V.SUNILKUMAR, ASSISTANT, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., PIN-673 635. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, P.O.CALICUT UNIVERSITY-673 635. 2. REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, P.O.CALICUT UNIVERSITY, PIN-673 635. ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.34152/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DTD. 30.8.07 OF UNVERSITY OF CALICUT. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DTD. 13.3.2009 OF UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. P3:- COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 17.7.2010 OF UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. P4:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATIN PUBLISHED IN THE PSC BULLETIN DTD. 15.10.07. P5:- COPY OF THE APPLICTION FORM FOR APPEARING IN THE DEPARTMENTAL TEST. P6:- COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE PSC TO THE PETITIONER. P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. NIL SUBMTITED BY THE PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 4.10.2010 OF UNVIERSITY OF CALICUT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JDUGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 34152 of 2010-T - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is working as an Assistant in the service of the University. He is aggrieved by the proceedings as per Ext.P8, by which his request to declare the probation has not been granted on the plea that he was not eligible to appear for the Secretariat Manual Test. 2. The service particulars of the petitioner show the following: He was appointed by order dated 30.8.2007 as an Assistant and he joined duty on 6.9.2007. The appointment was on a provisional basis, even though he had undergone a selection process. The appointment was made as permitted by this Court in the interim order in passed by this Court in W.P. (C) Nos.15528/2007 and 18167/2007 and Ext.P1 is the copy of the appointment order. After the writ petitions were disposed of, by Ext.P2 a fresh order of appointment order was issued on 18.3.2009. 3. In fact, the petitioner applied for the department test conducted in January 2008 pursuant to applications invited. A true copy of the notification is produced as Ext.P4. Ext.P5 is the copy of the application. It is pointed out that the relevant column does not require the candidate to wpc 34152/2010 2 specify whether he is in regular, provisional or adhoc service or on deputation. The petitioner submitted his application through the University and no objection was raised also. Ext.P6 is the copy of the hall ticket. When a memo was issued, he submitted an explanation and thereafter filed Ext.P7 representation. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the University. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no prohibition for a person appointed on provisional basis, in appearing for the department test. It is pointed out that at the time of applying for the test also no objection was raised. 5. By relying upon ground 'C' of the writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are many employees in the service of the University who had acquired the departmental test qualification while they were in provisional service and many of them have been given promotions also. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the University explained the stand of the University as detailed in the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is mentioned that in terms of the notification issued by the Public Service Commission, those who are in service only are eligible to wpc 34152/2010 3 apply for the department test. A person can be said to be an employee in service only if he is appointed on regular basis. In fact, after getting regular appointment in the University, the petitioner applied and appeared for the department test in January, 2010 and July 2010 and he has passed the same in July 2010. He has produced the certificate along with his submission for making necessary entries in his service book. 7. The only question is whether the prayer of the petitioner to treat him as duly passed the department test, has to be granted or not. 8. In fact, mainly the question raised is in regard to the declaration of probation. The same is a matter for the University alone to consider, obviously. It will have to be considered in terms of the relevant rules also as well as the practice followed by the University. Therefore, I am not pronouncing anything on the said aspect. 9. Herein, the Public Service Commission has not cancelled the test. The petitioner's application was forwarded by the University and accordingly he was allowed to appear for the test also. It does not appear from the pleadings that there was any prohibition for a provisional employee to appear for the test. In that view of the matter, the view taken in Ext.P8 that the petitioner is not eligible to appear for the test, is not supported by any rules. wpc 34152/2010 4 10. Therefore, to the above limited extent Ext.P8 will stand modified. There will be a direction to the University to treat the petitioner as duly passed the department test conducted by the Public Service Commission. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/