H PADMANABHA IYER Vs. S R SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are against the judgment of a learned judge in O. P. No. 4299 of 1969 and O. P. 3743 of 1969 respectively, preferred by two different petitioners. The main judgment was in O. P. 3743 of 1969, quashing Exts. P2, P4 and P5 orders therein. In consequence, Exts. P2 and P4 orders in O. P. No. 4299 of 1969 were also quashed, these being the same as exts. P2 and P5 in O. P. No. 3743 of 1969. The common 3rd respondent in both the o. Ps. is the appellant in these writ appeals. Ext. P4 order in O. P. 3743 of 1969 is only a consequential order of reversion of the petitioner therein; and ext. P5 therein is the copy of a similar order as Ext. P2, in favour of the 4th respondent in the two writ petitions. As the said respondent has not preferred any appeal against the said judgment, nothing herein will affect the judgment of the learned judge in so far as it quashed Ext. P5 in O. P. No. 3743 of 1969 (same as Ext. P4 in the other O. P. ). For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the exhibits, where possible, as in O. P. 3743 of 1969.

(2.) THE appellant in these writ appeals was appointed district Statistical Officer on 20 31964. He had not passed the test qualification during the two years' period of probation, which ended on 20 31966, nor within the twice-extended period, which ended on 20 31968. Thereupon ext. P2 order was passed. The relevant portion of the said order is as follows: "government are advised that if probation is continued beyond the normal period, without either extending or terminating the probation, the officer has to be treated as an approved probationer holding a substantive appointment. The rules require that Shri. Padmanabha Iyer should pass the account test (lower) during the period of probation. Only persons who have passed the test will be declared as approved probationer. In this case shri. Padmanabha Iyer will have to be treated as an approved probationer in the post of District Statistical Officer inspite of his not having the test qualification. So long as there is no provision in the Rules which insist on the passing of the test by an approved probationer also, Shri. Padmanabha Iyer has to be treated as having been permanently exempted from test qualifications and government order accordingly.

(3.) BEFORE we consider the above reasoning of the learned judge, we should point out that before us the appellant filed C. M. P. No. 124 of 1972 in Writ Appeal No. 1 of 1972 to receive Exts. A to D as additional documents. C. M. P. 64 of 1972 was filed in Writ Appeal No. 2 of 1972 to receive the identical documents. These were not opposed, and were allowed on 25 71973. Ex. A dated 14th September 1960 is a copy of the Special Rules of the kerala Statistics and Economics Service; Ext. B is the G. O. dated 12 21963 issued by the Government, integrating the existing Bureau of Economic Studies and the Department of Statistics; Ext. C is a copy of the G. O. M. S. 284/68 dated 11th September 1968; and Ext. D is copy of a circular memo dated 31-8-1970 regarding declaration of probation of Officers.