G VARADAN Vs. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUCHIRAPALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus challenging the order R. O. C. 608/86-A1 dated 25. 3. 1988 under which the petitioner's services were terminated almost after a period of 21 years.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the relevant and necessary facts landing to the filing of the writ petition are the following :- The petitioner was selected for the post of Typist by the tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in 1967 and was appointed as Typist in the judicial Department of Tiruchirapalli District with effect from 13. 2. 1967. He has passed typewriting lower examination in English and completed his probation on 1. 7. 1971 and thus became an approved Probationer. He was not entitled to draw any increment in the time scale till he qualifies himself in typewriting higher grade in English. Having become an approved probationer, he has discharged duties as a typist satisfactorily.

(3.) THE respondent refers to Rule 27-A of the Rules and states that the order dated 1. 7. 1971 declaring the probation of the petitioner does not give the correct date on which he should have completed the period of his probation, and that the date of completion of probation should have been 9. 3. 1969. It is further submitted that unless the condition (3) and (4) to Rule 27-A of the Rules are satisfied in respect of a member of the service no order can be passed that his probation is declared to have been satisfactorily completed. According to the respondent on the date when the probation of the petitioner was declared has was not qualified as he had not passed the typewriting examination in English by higher grade, and Rule 27-A states that declaration of probation does not involve any relaxation of rules.