IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15049 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ U. AMEEN, AZEEM MANZIL, KAREELAKULANGARA P.O., EDASSERY, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY (FINANCE - EXPENDITURE), DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.15049 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is working as a Lower Division Clerk in the Public Works Department and joined duty on 6.1.2006. His probation in the post of entry is yet to be declared. He has sought for employment abroad and has therefore submitted Exhibit P1 application for five years leave in terms of Appendix XII-A of Part II of the KSR. The application is not being considered and hence the writ petition. 2. Petitioner has also challenged Exhibit P5 which contains an order passed by the Government that applications for grant of leave under Appendix XII-A, XII-B and XII-C will be considered only after the incumbent has satisfactorily completed his probation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Appendix XII-A contains a provision that the incumbent is entitled to seek leave even before satisfactory completion of probation. Therefore Exhibit P5 order runs against the statute, it is contended. W.P.(C)No.15049/08 -2- 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Jacob P.Alex and the learned Government Pleader. Though there is a challenge against Exhibit P5, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same may be left open and need not be considered at this state. It is accordingly ordered. Petitioner's application is eligible to be considered in accordance with law. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P1 in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, JUDGE. dsn