IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15586 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.C.SANALKUMAR,PRINTER,IIND GRADE GOVERNMENT PRESS,SHORNUR,PALAKKAD.RESIDING AT SUDARSANA,EAST VILLAGE,KOLLENGODE,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PRINTING,GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT,GOVERNMENT PRESS SHORNUR,PALAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ARAVIND BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.15586 OF 2010 (W) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ Petition is against Ext.P9 order reverting the petitioner from the post of Printer Grd.II. to the post of Lascar Grd.II. Reason stated in Ext.P9 is that since the petitioner did not complete 2 years duty within the continuous period of 3 years, his probation has not been declared. 2. It is stated in Ext.P9 that though the petitioner was appointed as Printer Grd.II on 6.3.2000, till now the petitioner has not completed 2 years duty within a continuous period of 3 years for declaration of his probation. It is also stated that there is no provision for further extension and that therefore he is reverted. 3. Counsel for the petitioner relies on Exts.P1and P2. According to the petitioner by Ext.P1, the third respondent required the 2nd respondent to place a proposal for declaration of probation of the petitioner and on that basis the 3rd respondent placed Ext.P2 proposal before the 2nd respondent. It is stated that in Ext.P2 the 3rd respondent has accepted that the petitioner has discharged WPC.No.15586 /2010 :2 : duty for a period of 2 years during the continuous period of 3 years and therefore the contrary view taken in Ext.P9 is illegal. On this basis, it is argued that petitioner's reversion is illegal. 4. However, on instruction Government Pleader submits that though based on Ext.P1, the 3rd respondent had submitted Ext.P2 proposal that was rejected by the 2nd respondent. It is stated that reasons for his rejection was that during the continuous period of 3 years, the petitioner has not discharged for 2 years duty and as the petitioner did not render sufficient service for declaration of probation the only option available to the authorities was to revert the petitioner. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, if the petitioner has not rendered sufficient service to have his probation declared this court will not be justified in finding fault with Ext.P9 order. In the above circumstances Exts.P1 or P2 will not help the petitioner. Consequently, Ext.P9 reversion of the petitioner is unassailable and is to be upheld. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.15586 /2010 :3 :