The University had the authority to extend the probation period, denying the petitioner's entitlement for earlier benefits.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner joined the service of the 2^nd respondent University as an Assistant Gr.II on 01.01.2010. According to the petitioner, though his probation ought to have been declared by 01.01.2012, his probation has been declared only on 15.02.2021 with effect from 31.08.2018 by the 2^nd respondent University. On account of this, the petitioner laments that the benefits available in his service like increments etc, if the probation was declared on 01.01.2012, are denied to him. In the afore circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P2 order issued by the 2^nd respondent and in the alternative, seeking for a declaration that his probation should be declared from 01.01.2012. He has also sought for an extension of the increments due to the petitioner from 01.01.2011. He also prays that other benefits which ought to have been extended should also be directed to be granted to him.

2. I have heard Sri.Sri.Rajan.A, the party-in-person as well as Miss.Jaeona James representing Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent University.

3. The fist issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is as regards the declaration of probation carried out by Ext.P22 order. As noticed earlier, the petitioner joined the service of the University as an Assistant on 01.01.2010. It is the submission of the petitioner that his probation ought to have been declared with reference to the provisions of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules , 1958 (for short “KS & SSR”) as amended in the year 2007; within a period of two years. The provisions of Rule 28 of KS&SSR as amended in the year 2007 through S.R.O.No.552/2007 (Ext.P41), is relied on by the petitioner in support of his contention. He also relies on the provisions of Statues 2 of Chapter 4 of the Calicut University First Statues, 1977, (hereinafter referred to as First Statute), which reads as under:-

“2. Applicability of the Kerala Service Rules, etc. to the non-teaching staff:- Subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes issued thereunder, the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, the Kerala Service Rules, 1959 and the Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960 as amended from time to time in so far as may be applicable and except to the extent expressly provided for in these Statutes, shall apply in the matter of all the service conditions of the University employees in the University service:

4. The petitioner also places reliance on the RTI reply received by him at Ext.P34, wherein also the University has clarified that the provisions of the KSR as well as the KS & SSR as also the periodical amendments are applicable to the employees of the University.

5. Per contra, it is the submission of Miss.Jaeona, the learned counsel for the University that the provisions of Chapter 4 can be made applicable only in a situation where there are no other provisions in the University Act or the Statues, which goes against the spirit of the provisions of KS & SSR. She would also place reliance on the provisions of Statute 9 under Chapter 4 of the First Statutes, which reads as under:-

“9. Probation:- (1) Every person appointed to Class I, II and III post shall, from the date on which he joins duty be on probation for a period of one year within a continuous period of two years:

Provided that it shall be competent for the Syndicate to extend the period of probation for a period not exceeding one year for good and sufficient reasons.

Where there are more than one grade to the same category and duties and responsibilities attached to the various grades are one and the same and appointment to the higher grades are also made by promotion from the lower grades, then probation shall be insisted only in the lowest