M.C. Sanalkumar Vs. the State of Kerala,

M.C. Sanalkumar vs The State of Kerala, ;The Director of Printing, Government and Deputy Superintendent, Government Pre

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Kerala Decided Jun 21, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/903555

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/903555
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Antony Dominic, J.
Decided On: Jun 21, 2010
Case Number: WP (C). No. 15586 of 2010(W)
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.C. Sanalkumar

Advocate P.V. Jayachandran, Adv.

Respondent

The State of Kerala, ;The Director of Printing, Government and Deputy Superintendent, Government Pre

Advocate No Appearance

Excerpt

- antony dominic, j.1. 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 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.....

Full Judgment

Antony Dominic, J.

1. 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 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.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2010 Same Parties M.C. Sanalkumar vs The State of Kerala, ;The Director of Prin... Same Subject Service Same Judge Antony Dominic, J.

Service