IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30064 of 2008(D) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RAVEENDRAN, ARCHITECTURAL HEAD DRAFTSMAN OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ARCHITECT, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, PWD WING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED SRI.S.VIJI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, P.W.D., GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, P.W.D., PUBLIC OFFICE WING, OPPOSITE MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF ARCHITECT, P.W.D. PUBLIC OFFICE WING, OPPOSITE MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.Ravindran, J. ===================== W.P(C).No.30064 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 15th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is presently working as Architectural Head Draftsman in the office of the third respondent and is due to retire from service on 29.11.2008, has filed this Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents 1 to 3 to declare the probation of the petitioner as Architectural Head Draftsman from 13.10.98 to 3.11.2004; ii) Direct the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit P3 representation in accordance with law within a time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. The petitioner was provisionally promoted as Architectural Head Draftsman along with others by Ext.P1 order dated 13.10.1998 issued by the third respondent. He worked as Architectural Head Draftsman from 13.10.1998 till 3.11.2004 when by Ext.P2 order he was reverted from the said post and posted as Architectural Draftsman Grade I. The petitioner claims that thereafter he was again promoted as Architectural Head Draftsman by order passed on 5.4.2006. The petitioner submits that though he has requested the third respondent as early as on 9.11.2007 by submitting Ext.P3 representation to declare his probation in the WP(C) No.30064/08 -: 2 :- category of Architectural Head Draftsman, no action has been taken in the matter. Whether the petitioner has satisfactorily completed his probation in the category of Architectural Head Draftsman or not is essentially a matter for the third respondent to decide at least in the first instance. Therefore this Court cannot exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution direct the third respondent to declare the probation of the petitioner in the category of Architectural Head Draftsman. The only relief that can therefore be granted to the petitioner is to direct the third respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 and take a decision thereon expeditiously. 2. Such being the situation, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claims and contentions, I dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the third respondent to take a decision on the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P3, within one month from today. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 17/10