A.R. Narayanan vs The Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board and The Executive Officer

J. Chelameswar, C.J.—Aggrieved by a judgment dated 18th May, 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 11192 of 2010 by which the writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage, the unsuccessful petitioner therein preferred this writ appeal.

The appellant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in Sree Manappulli Bhagavathy Devaswom, Palakkad. It appears that the period of probation as per the relevant Rules is two years. However, on completion of two years, the appellant''s probation was not declared, nor was he confirmed in service. He therefore made a representation to consider his case for confirmation in service which was declined by an order (Ext.P5) marked in the writ petition. Challenging the same the appellant approached this Court by the abovementioned writ petition. By the judgment under appeal, a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal.

By the judgment under appeal it is held that the appellant is not entitled for any notice before the authorities took a decision to extend the probation of the appellant on the ground that his performance during the period of probation was not satisfactory. Though there was a vague allegation of mala fides, the learned Judge recorded a finding that nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the said contention. The other submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant was that there cannot be any retrospective extension of the period of probation which was also rejected by the learned Judge.

It is well settled in law that declaration of the probation is not automatic on the expiry of the period of probation stipulated under the relevant Rules. Unless the probation is declared, the probationer cannot become a full ember of the service. It is part of the right of the employer, the State in the instant case, to make assessment of the satisfactory performance of the employee during the period of probation. After all, such a principle was evolved in the larger public interest to see that the persons appointed to public service are required to be of certain degree of efficiency in public employment. Before getting confirmed into the service the rights of such a person are very limited. Nothing is brought to our notice or any authority is placed before us to take a different view. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal.

In the circumstances, the writ appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.