IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/28THAGRAHAYANA 1933 WPC.No. 33812 of 2011 (B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- DILEEP KUMDAR VALANKI MANAGER GRADE III GOVT, GUEST HOUSE KANNUR BY ADVS.SRI.N.SUGATHAN SMT.M.C.BINDUMOL RESPONDENTS: ------------ 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DSEPARTMENT OF TOURISM SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 2 THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM PARK VIEW THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033 R1 TO R2 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.K.JOHN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-12-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STK WPC.No. 33812 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: PI: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E1-6513/2006 DATED 29.10.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E3=10050/03 DATED 11.7-.008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDSER NO.E1-1782/21009 DATED 3.4.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E3-7520/2009 DATED 30.5.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E1-1782/2009 DATED 8.4.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO,E1-1782/2010 DATED 15-7-2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 2.11.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. P8: TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 1.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P9: TRUE COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 8.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P10. TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E2-21138/10 DATED 3.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P11: TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 16.4.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P12: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 2.5.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P13: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 26.8.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P14: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 12.9.2011 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P15: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 19.9.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P16: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 14.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P17: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.11.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P18: TRUE COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 23.11.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P19: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E2-21138/2010 DATED 9.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDNET. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P A TO JUDGE STK K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.33812 of 2011. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th December, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner while working as an Upper Division Typist was appointed by transfer as Manager Grade III and posted at the Government Guest House, Attingal. He joined duty as Manager Grade III on 5.7.2011. Thereafter, he has been working continuously in the said post, being posted at various places. He had been deputed for training to the Food Craft Institute, Kalamassery for a period of nine months, which training he has completed. 2. As per the provisions of the Special Rules for the Kerala Tourism Subordinate Service, 1995, the period of probation prescribed for a person appointed by transfer as Manager Grade III is two years on duty within a continuous period of three years. During the period of probation, he has to pass Account Test (Lower). Though the petitioner WP(C).No.33812/2011. 2 had appeared for the test, he has not been able to pass the same. Therefore, he has requested the Kerala Public Service Commission for revaluation/rechecking of his answer papers. No intimation regarding such rechecking has been communicated to him so far. 3. In the above circumstances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P15 representation for a further extension of the period of his probation. It is to be noted that the extension that is sought for at present is over and above the period of one year that has already been granted to him. Since any further extension could be granted only by the first respondent, the petitioner expected his representation Ext.P15 to be forwarded to the first respondent. However, that was not done. Instead, his representation has been rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P17. According to the petitioner, Ext.P17 is absolutely without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. WP(C).No.33812/2011. 3 4. In the meantime, the petitioner has been issued with Ext.P16 notice asking him to show cause why action should not be taken to terminate his probation. Thereafter, as per Ext.P19 the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Senior Typist. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seriously aggrieved by Exts.P17 and P19. 5. I have heard the learned Special Government Pleader also. 6. According to the counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner was periodically being posted to various places, he was not in a position to appear for the required test and to pass the same within the stipulated period of time. He had also been deputed for a training to the Food Craft Institute, Kalamassery. Therefore, according to him, in spite of his best efforts he was not able to acquire the test qualification. For the above reasons, he had submitted Ext.P15 seeking extension of his period of probation. The WP(C).No.33812/2011. 4 first respondent being the only authority empowered to grant such extension, the second respondent ought to to have forwarded Exts.P15 to the third respondent. However, without doing so, the representation has been rejected by the second respondent who has no authority to do so. Consequently, according to the petitioner, his reversion as per Ext.P19 is also bad. 7. Having considered the rival contentions anxiously, I am of opinion that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have acquired the test qualification within the stipulated period. In the case of the petitioner, the probation period had also been extended by one year. However, he has not been able to acquire the test qualification within the extended period also. Therefore, he has sought for a further extension as per Ext.P15. Since the petitioner has not been able to acquire the test qualification, his reversion as per Ext.P19 is perfectly justified. I do not find any grounds to WP(C).No.33812/2011. 5 interfere with the said order. However, the grievance of the petitioner that Ext.P15 representation has been rejected by the second respondent, who has no power to do so is certainly justified. It is the first respondent who is empowered to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to any extension of his period of probation, as sought for. Therefore, notwithstanding the issue of Ext.P17, Ext.P15 requires consideration by the competent authority. For the above reason, it is only proper that Ext.P15 is considered by the first respondent and appropriate orders passed thereon, without delay. 8. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner set out in his representation, evidenced herein by Ext.P15, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a WP(C).No.33812/2011. 6 copy of this judgment. For the purpose of considering Ext.P15, the second respondent shall forward the same to the first respondent and the first respondent shall take a decision on Ext.P15 in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Before taking a final decision on Ext.P15. the petitioner shall also be heard. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-