Judgment :- 1. The only question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the 2nd respondent was justified in holding that the petitioner was not qualified for recruitment as Block Development Officer. The petitioner was appointed as a Gram Sevak by the Government of Madras by their proceedings dated 8th June, 1954. On the selection of the petitioner to the post of Gram Sevak he was sent for training. The Government of Kerala by their order dated 26-7-1962 laid down certain rules for recruitment of the Block Development Officers. It was laid down by that order that 80 per cent of the post of Block Development Officers will be filled up by promotion from 5 different categories of Officers of which the last one is the Gram Sevaks. Clause (4) of that order runs as follows "However, a minimum service of five years in the Blocks on the date of application will be insisted on in the case of Junior Statistical Inspectors and Social Education Organisers while in the case of Gramsevaks this minimum will be eight years of service in the post of Gramsevak on the date of application. The petitioner filed an application in pursuance of the invitation for the same by the Kerala Public Service Commission for appointment as Block Development Officer on 15-9-1962. According to the petitioner he had put in more than 8 years of service as Gramasevak as required by the above clause in the Government order if the period of his training also is taken into account. The petitioner was a graduate and he possessed all the other necessary qualifications. The application of the petitioner was rejected by the 2nd respondent by Ext. P5 order for the reason that he has not completed 8 years of service in the post of Gramasevak. 2. The question for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to have his period of training reckoned as service in the post of Gramasevak in order to qualify him for selection to the post of Block Development Officer. According to Madras G.O. Ms. 2462/Public (Rural Development Projects) Department dated 16-7-1956 every person appointed as Gramasevak shall undergo training for a period of one year. The principle enunciated in the above G.O. by the Government of Madras was accepted by the Government of Kerala in G.O. MS. 65/61/D.D. Development (E) Department dated 6-7-1961. In view of the above G.Os. According to Madras G.O. Ms. 2462/Public (Rural Development Projects) Department dated 16-7-1956 every person appointed as Gramasevak shall undergo training for a period of one year. The principle enunciated in the above G.O. by the Government of Madras was accepted by the Government of Kerala in G.O. MS. 65/61/D.D. Development (E) Department dated 6-7-1961. In view of the above G.Os. the petitioner contends that the period spent by him for training should be reckoned as service in the post of Gramasevak and that he was qualified for selection to the post of Block Development Officer. It may also be stated that in G.O.Rt. No.1506/PL & D dated 9-12-1958 it was ordered that in the case of Gramasevaks of the former Malabar area their period of training would be counted as service for the purpose of seniority. But it has been specifically stated in the G.O. that the period of training would not be counted for the purpose of probation and increment. The petitioner submits that although the period of training may not be taken into account for the purpose of probation or increment he became a member of the service on his appointment as Gramasevak and therefore the period of his training should be taken as service in the post. In R.2(7) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, a full member of the service has been defined as meaning a member of the service who has been appointed substantively to a permanent post borne on the cadre thereof. A member of a service is a person who has been appointed to that service and who has not retired or resigned, been removed or dismissed, been substantively transferred or reduced to another service, or been discharged otherwise than for want of a vacancy. He may be a probationer, an approved probationer or a full member of that service (see R.2(9) ). A person is said to be on duty as a member of a service when he is performing, the duties of a post borne on the cadre of such service or is undergoing probation, instruction or training prescribed for such service (see R.2(6)). A person is said to be on duty as a member of a service when he is performing, the duties of a post borne on the cadre of such service or is undergoing probation, instruction or training prescribed for such service (see R.2(6)). A person is said to be appointed to the service when in accordance with the rules or in accordance with the rules applicable at the time, as the case may be, he discharges for the first time the duties of a post borne on such cadre or commences the probation, instruction or training prescribed for members thereof (See R.2(1) ). These rules would make it clear that the petitioner became a member of the service, and that the period of his training must be reckoned as service in the post of Grama Sevak. I therefore hold that the petitioner had the necessary length of service in the post of Grama Sevak and that he was not ineligible for recruitment to the post of Block Development Officer for the reason that he had not the minimum period of Service in the post of Gramasevak. 3. I set aside Ext. P5 memo and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to compete for the selection to the post of Block Development Officers.