M.C. SANALKUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA,

JUDGEMENT

(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.) 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.