IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 32916 of 2007(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ S.PRASANTH, ARCHANA, MAYYANAD P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).32916/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT While working as a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, petitioner was advised by the PSC to the post of Assistant Engineer/Assistant Town Planning Officer/Town Planning Officer Grade-II in the Municipal Common service. As per the advise memo dated 5.9.2003, posting orders were issued on 13.10.2003. Apparently, petitioner requested for extension of joining time by 45 days. Such extension was granted. It seems that he was not able to secure a relieving order from the LIC. Therefore, he applied for a further extension of joining time by a period of two years, which was rejected by the Government. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner's request for extension of joining time was rejected under Ext.P5, PSC proceeded to cancel the petitioner's advise as per Ext.P9. Petitioner had approached this Court challenging the order of the PSC as also the order passed by the Director of Urban Affairs consequential thereon. W.P.(C).32916/2007 2 2. By judgment dated 14.12.2006, Ext.P10, this Court permitted the petitioner to file a representation before the Government and also directed the Government to sympathetically consider the same. Accordingly, Ext.P11 representation was filed by the petitioner. This was considered elaborately under Ext.P12 order dated 31.8.2007. Government found that no sympathetic grounds or peculiar circumstances are existing in the case of the petitioner to invoke the powers under Rule 39 of Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R. Petitioner's request was therefore, rejected. Ext.P12 is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Statement has been filed by the second respondent supporting Ext.P12. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.T.A.Shaji and the learned Government Pleader. 5. Government cannot be faulted with, if it declines extension of joining time beyond a period of 45 days. W.P.(C).32916/2007 3 Apparently, petitioner could not secure his relieving order from LIC within the extended period granted by the Government. It cannot be said that the Government should have granted further time to the petitioner. After all, petitioner does not have a right under any Rule to compell the Government to grant such extension. If that be so, cancellation of advise by the PSC treating the vacancy as an NJD vacancy also cannot be faulted with. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court by Ext.P10 judgment dated 14.12.2006, directed the Government to sympathetically consider the case of the petitioner and that Ext.P12 order does not reflect a correct comprehension of the directions issued by this Court. 7. I am unable to accept the submission. Government had referred to the earlier facts, in Ext.P12 order to communicate the manner in which the Government had approached the issue. Government had taken note of the fact that the petitioner is in any way working in the W.P.(C).32916/2007 4 LIC. It has also been noted that there are no sympathetic grounds or peculiar circumstances necessitating the invocation of powers under Rule 39 of Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R. I am of the view, that one factor which was taken note of, that the petitioner is continuing in the employment of the LIC, is a significant fact. There is no error of law or error of jurisdiction which vitiates in Ext.P12. Writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs