Probation periods are contingent upon successful completion of required examinations; administrative delays do not invalidate probation declarations.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Pooventherarajan For Respondent: Mr.M.Rajendran, AGP ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent negativing the request made by the petitioner to declare her probation w.e.f. Two years from the date of her appointing the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant under compassionate appointment w.e.f. 02.06.2010. According to the petitioner, due to administrative delay, she was sent for foundation training at Civil service Training Institute at Bhavanisagar. After conclusion of training, she appeared for departmental test. However, she failed in two subjects. Later, she took re-test and cleared the same. According to the petitioner, as per Rule 32(a)(1) of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, every person appointed to a category by direct recruitment shall be on probation for a total period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years. The petitioner claims that her probation should be declared with effect from 02.06.2010 i.e. two years of her initial appointment. The respondents have declared her probation from 18.08.2017, they are following the date, on which, she passed the test viz., on 17.08.2018. Aggrieved by the said declaration of probation on 18.08.2017 and not on 02.06.2012, the petitioner made a representation before the second respondent, which came to be rejected by way of impugned. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

4. The second respondent has fairly stated that due to administrative reasons, the petitioner could not be sent foundation training at Civil service Training Institute at Bhavanisagar in a routine manner. However, the petitioner did not emerged successfully in the tests conducted after the training period and she failed in two subjects. Later she took re-test and declared them on 29.04.2017 and 17.08.2017. On the following date i.e. 18.08.2017, the probation of the petitioner was declared. The petitioner has not challenged the delay on the part of the respondents in sending her for the training centre. The second respondent has fairly accepted that due to administrative reasons, the petitioner could not be sent for training in a routine manner. Even otherwise, it is not a case of the petitioner that she cleared all the examination in first attempt, the petitioner passed the tests only on 17.08.2017. Immediately on the next day i.e. 18.08.2017, her probation was declared. There was absolutely no delay on the part of the second respondent in declaring the probation of the petitioner. Moreover, it is also not a case of the petitioner that she cleared the test on a final examination held on 01.10.2017 and there was a delay on the part of the respondent in declaring her probation. Probation could be declared only after a candidate successfully clears all the tests. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the second respondent.

5. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.