Raveendran vs Secretary To Government on 15 October, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Raveendran vs Secretary To Government on 15 October, 2008

Bench: P.N.Ravindran

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 30064 of 2008(D)


1. RAVEENDRAN, ARCHITECTURAL HEAD DRAFTSMAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, P.W.D.,
                       ...       Respondent

2. CHIEF ENGINEER, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION,

3. CHIEF ARCHITECT, P.W.D.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :15/10/2008

 O R D E R
                                P.N.Ravindran, J.
                        =====================
                         W.P(C).No.30064 of 2008
                        =====================

               Dated this the 15th day of October, 2008.

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is presently working as Architectural Head Draftsman in the office of the third respondent and is due to retire from service on 29.11.2008, has filed this Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:

"i) Issue a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents 1 to 3 to declare the probation of the petitioner as Architectural Head Draftsman from 13.10.98 to 3.11.2004;

ii) Direct the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit P3 representation in accordance with law within a time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

2. The petitioner was provisionally promoted as Architectural Head Draftsman along with others by Ext.P1 order dated 13.10.1998 issued by the third respondent. He worked as Architectural Head Draftsman from 13.10.1998 till 3.11.2004 when by Ext.P2 order he was reverted from the said post and posted as Architectural Draftsman Grade I. The petitioner claims that thereafter he was again promoted as Architectural Head Draftsman by order passed on 5.4.2006. The petitioner submits that though he has requested the third respondent as early as on 9.11.2007 by submitting Ext.P3 representation to declare his probation in the WP(C) No.30064/08 -: 2 :- category of Architectural Head Draftsman, no action has been taken in the matter. Whether the petitioner has satisfactorily completed his probation in the category of Architectural Head Draftsman or not is essentially a matter for the third respondent to decide at least in the first instance. Therefore this Court cannot exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution direct the third respondent to declare the probation of the petitioner in the category of Architectural Head Draftsman. The only relief that can therefore be granted to the petitioner is to direct the third respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 and take a decision thereon expeditiously.

2. Such being the situation, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claims and contentions, I dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the third respondent to take a decision on the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P3, within one month from today.

P.N.Ravindran, Judge.

ess 17/10

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court