IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11192 of 2010(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- A.R.NARAYANAN, GED 36 YEARS, SON OF A.M. RAMACHANDRAN EMBRANTHIRI, ANILAKKAD MANA, KARINGARAPPULI POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVEASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE MANAPPULLI BHAGAVATHY DEVEASWOM, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.11192 of 2010 (Y) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a Lower Division Clerk at Sree Manappulli Bhagavathy Devaswom, Palakkad. He sought declaration of probation, that has now been turned down by Ext.P5. It is this order, which is under challenge. 2. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that it was because of unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner that the Devaswom has declined to declare satisfactory completion of probation. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not been put on notice of any unsatisfactory performance so far. It is also stated that it was for reasons which are malafide in nature that Ext.P5 has been issued. Yet another contention raised is that the authorities could not have declined to declare satisfactory completion of probation, once the period specified has expired. 4. In so far as want of notice before Ext.P5 is concerned, I do not think that such a notice is necessary because it is for the WP(C) No.11192/2010 -2- appointing authority to assess the satisfactory nature of service that has been rendered by a probationer and to decide as to whether the probation has to be declared or extended. As far as the plea of malafides is concerned, nothing has been placed on record to accept the said contention. As far as the last contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there cannot be extension of probation after the period specified has expired is concerned, in my view, unless Service Rules provides for automatic confirmation of probation on completion of the specified period, in the absence of an order of confirmation of probation, a probationer will continue on probation. Therefore, this contention also has to be rejected. Therefore, the grounds urged by the petitioner are unsustainable to interfere with Ext.P5. The writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg