JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent pertaining to his proceedings vide Letter No.58276/Pani-10(2)/2010-9 dated 15.09.2014 and the order of the second respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.Pani.3(2)/100609/2009 dated 19.07.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to grant relaxation under Rule 8(a) of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Services and include the name of the petitioner in the 2010 panel fit for promotion to the post of Tahsildar and grant consequential promotion with effect from 2010 with all attendant and monetary benefits.) 1. The order of rejection rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for retrospective declaration of probation by regularising the leave period, is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner states that he was promoted to the post of Deputy Tahsildar on 23.11.2007 and posted as Reception Deputy Tahsildar at Salem. The third respondent transferred the writ petitioner as Zonal Deputy Tahisldar, Gangavalli in proceedings dated 15.11.2008. The petitioner was relieved from duty immediately on 17.11.2008. Due to his ill-health, the petitioner joined and applied for medical leave from 19.11.2008 till 18.12.2008. The petitioner thereafter made a request application to transfer him as Deputy Tahsildar in Salem Taluk considering his health conditions. 3. The third respondent after delay of 13 days, issued orders, informing the writ petitioner that he has to join as Zonal Deputy Tahsildar at Gangavalli itself. Thus, the petitioner proceeded on leave further on the ground that he was not in a position to travel for 75 kms every day to Gangavalli. The petitioner applied leave on various grounds. The petitioner was continuously on leave for about 281 days. Thus, there was a delay in declaring the probation of the writ petitioner in the post of Deputy Tahsildar. Consequent to the delay in declaration of probation, the petitioner lost his further opportunity for promotion to the post of Tahsildar in 2010 panel. Thus, the petitioner made a representation to declare the probation with retrospective effect by regularising the period of leave period and the said application was rejected. 4. Consequent to the delay in declaration of probation, the petitioner lost his further opportunity for promotion to the post of Tahsildar in 2010 panel. Thus, the petitioner made a representation to declare the probation with retrospective effect by regularising the period of leave period and the said application was rejected. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that there was delay of 42 days in passing necessary orders and therefore, the petitioner's case is to be considered for retrospective declaration of probation and his name is to be included in the panel of the year 2010 for promotion to the post of Tahsildar. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the delay in declaration of probation occurred due to the continuous leave applied by the writ petitioner. No doubt, the leave was regulated, but the probation cannot be ante dated. Thus the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the respondents. 6. The very purpose and object of the probation is to ensure that the employee served during the probation period to the satisfaction of the superior officials. The period of probation is an assessment period and therefore, on completion of the said period, declaration is to be made. Even during the probation period if the employee remained continuously on leave, then there is no infirmity in respect of declaring the probation after completion of the specified period. 7. In the present case, the petitioner was transferred on promotion to Gangavelli. He proceeded on leave and submitted an application to re-transfer him to Salem Taluk. The very conduct of the writ petitioner reveals that he was not willing to work at Gangavelli during the relevant point of time and made a request to re-transfer him to Salem Taluk. An employee, who was promoted and transferred to a new place, is expected to work in the transferred new place. No doubt in respect of certain personal grievances, the employees are at liberty to submit an application to the Authorities to consider their cases. If at all such representation is not considered by the Competent Authorities on various reasons, then the employee is boud to work. 8. No doubt in respect of certain personal grievances, the employees are at liberty to submit an application to the Authorities to consider their cases. If at all such representation is not considered by the Competent Authorities on various reasons, then the employee is boud to work. 8. In the present case, the petitioner has availed medical leave only for the first 30 days and thereafter he proceeded on Earned Leave for 33 days and 145 days and thereafter on Unearned Leave on Private Affairs for 32 days and leave on loss of pay for 41 days. Thus, he was continuously on leave without joining the duty at Gangavelli. 9. In view of the continuous leave of about 281 days, there was a delay in declaring of probation. Such a delay cannot be construed as administrative and the delay in declaration occurred due to the conduct of the writ petitioner in not working in the transferred place at Gangavelli in the post of Deputy Tahsildar. Thus, the own conduct of the petitioner resulted in denial of non-inclusion of his name in the panel of the year 2010 for promotion to the post of Tahsildar and also resulted in delay in declaration of probation. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that during the next panel if the name of the petitioner was included and he was promoted to the post of Tahsildar. 10. This being the factum, no further adjudication needs to be entertained in respect of the grounds raised in the present writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.