Judgment :- The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition for the issue of a certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the order of the second respondent in Ref. No. 3482/N/89 dated 19-4-1989 and the consequential order of the first respondent in L.Dis. No. 93374/PNE/IP89 dated 26-9-1989, and for a further direction to the lst respondent to permit the petitioner to join the Second Year training for the Academic Year 1989-90, and issue such further or other directions. 2. The Petitioner was selected and posted under the 2nd respondent in the Government Kasturiba Gandhi Hospital for the course of Nursing Training in 1987-88 Batch. She joined the Course on 1-12-1987. She passed the examination conducted at the end of 12 months period and normally she should have joined the second year training. But, according to her, she fell ill during the annual leave between 1-12-1988 and 31-12-1988, and she could not go to work. According to her affidavit, she worked up to 9-12-1988 and availed of the leave from the said date, and while so, she suffered infectious Hepatitis from 23-12-1988 and became fit to join only after 22-3-1989. She claims to have sent leave letters along with necessary certificates. But, by an order dated 19-4-1989, the 2nd respondent had said that she was deemed to have been terminated with effect from 9-12-1988. It is also stated in the affidavit that in spite of repeated requests stating the ground of her illness with medical certificates, etc., by an order dated 26-9-1989, the respondents have rejected the petitioner's requests, driving her to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. A counter-affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent in which it is stated that after the expiry of the annual leave on 1-12-1988, the petitioner ought to have joined the training. But she did not do so, nor did she send any intimation to the concerned authorities regarding her extension of leave giving reasons therefor. Hence an intimation was sent to the petitioner by registered post by the Superintendent of the Government Kasturba Gandhi Hospital in Office Ref. No.3482/N/89 dated 13-2-1989 informing her that she must report for Training immediately. But she did not do so, nor did she send any intimation to the concerned authorities regarding her extension of leave giving reasons therefor. Hence an intimation was sent to the petitioner by registered post by the Superintendent of the Government Kasturba Gandhi Hospital in Office Ref. No.3482/N/89 dated 13-2-1989 informing her that she must report for Training immediately. Simultaneously, another letter was sent to her father Thiru A. Manickam, informing him that his daughter had not joined the training on 31-12-1988 and as such, requesting him to instruct his daughter, the petitioner herein, to report for training immediately. But, neither the petitioner nor her father sent any reply to the letter dated 13-2-1989. The petitioner continued to be absent till 16-3-1989, and on 17-3-1989, the petitioner reported before the second respondent expressing her willingness to rejoin the training. According to the counter-affidavit, there was no provision in the regulations governing the training course for allowing the Nursing Pupil who had absented herself from training for more than three months at any one time, and so the petitioner was not allowed to join the course. It is also stated that the petitioner having unauthorisedly absented herself for more than three months, she was not entitled to claim re-admission to the course. 4. I have already referred to the statement of the petitioner in her affidavit that she was ill up to 22-3-1989, and she could join the course only thereafter and the statement in the counter-affidavit about her meeting the second respondent on 17-3-1989, offering to rejoin the course. The letter dated 13-2-1989 issued by the respondents admittedly reached the petitioner, but she did not give any reply thereto. Though in the affidavit filed by her, a reference has been made about the leave letters alleged to have been sent by her along with the necessary certificate, none of them has been produced by her. On the other hand, in the typed set, a letter dated 15-4-1989 finds a place. That letter has been addressed by the petitioner to the 1st respondent herein. The relevant portion of the letter reads as follows:- "....... I fell ill and I could not continue my studies. Now I have recovered completely from illness and approached the Nursing Tutor regarding my further studies. I was instructed that I have to obtain permission from the DME. The relevant portion of the letter reads as follows:- "....... I fell ill and I could not continue my studies. Now I have recovered completely from illness and approached the Nursing Tutor regarding my further studies. I was instructed that I have to obtain permission from the DME. They have also advised me, we will send further orders in connection with my continuation of studies, but so far I have not received any reply from them for the last two months. During the first week of this month again, I have approached the Nursing Superintendent of KGH. They have simply diverted me that I have obtained order from the DME, Madras-5." * 5. One thing is clear that in the letter referred to above, it is the case of the petitioner that she had approached the Nursing Superintendent or of Nursing Tutor at least two months prior to the date of the letter. That means, she had met the concerned person in February, 1989. This, of course, is against her own version in the affidavit that she was ill up to 22-3-1989. The portion extracted above refers about the petitioner meeting the concerned person during the first week of the month, i.e., April, 1989. In the counter-affidavit, a reference has been made, to the petitioner meeting the 2nd respondent on 17-3-1989. The fact that she had met the 2nd respondent in March, 1989 is not denied. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was able to move about at least from February, 1989 onwards. Hence she cannot claim that she was ill up to 22-3-1989 or that she could not join the Course till April, 1989. In the absence of her producing the leave letters referred to in her affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, her version that she was sending leave letters with the necessary certificates cannot be accepted. 6. On 19-4-1989, the Superintendent of the Hospital sent a letter to the petitioner. After referring in the first paragraph to her absence from 9-12-1988 onwards, in the second paragraph, it is stated that she "is deemed to have been terminated from the training with effect from 9-12-1988 (i.e., the date on which she proceeded on leave)." * It is stated in the said paragraph that the relevant portion in the rules is Rule II(b) of Volume II. Rule 11(b) of Volume II of the Tamil Nadu Medical Code reads as follows :- "Nurse pupils may also be granted extraordinary leave without stipends or allowances on medical certificate for six months in all up to a maximum of two months at any one time during the period of their training. Such leave may be combined, with earned leave but the total amount of leave so combined admissible at any one time shall be limited to three months. A nurse pupil who is granted the maximum leave accordingly to this rule is unable to resume duty on the expiry of the leave his / her training shall be terminated." * 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the letter dated 19-4-1989 cannot be construed to be an order under Rule 11(b) as the Rule speaks of an order of termination. Learned counsel contends that the letter refers only to a deemed termination with effect from 9-12-1988 and does not purport to terminate on that date or from a future date. According to learned counsel, there is no provision in the Rules for a deemed termination and, therefore, the letter dated 19-4-1989 is invalid, and cannot have any effect on the continuation of the petitioner in the Training Course. 8. Learned Counsel also invites my attention to Rule 12 which provides for re-admission of candidates who had proceeded on long sick leave. As per that rule, if a Nurse pupil proceeds on leave on account of ill health and his/her training is terminated with reference to Rule 11(d), such a pupil may be readmitted by the Director of Medical Education, Madras for training on production of a Medical Fitness Certificate from the Medical Officer under whom he was undergoing treatment. On such re-admission, the pupil may be credited with such proportion of previous training as the Director of Medical Education considers advisable. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the Certificate issued by Dr. P. Krishnamurthi, M.B.B.S., D.M.R.D., Assistant Surgeon, Tamil Nadu Medical Services, on 23-5-1989. It is stated in that Certificate that the petitioner was under his treatment from 23-12-1988, to 22-3-1989, and that she was advised rest for investigation and total recovery from her illness. According to the certificate, she was found fit to resume her course and studies from 23-5-1989 onwards. 10. It is stated in that Certificate that the petitioner was under his treatment from 23-12-1988, to 22-3-1989, and that she was advised rest for investigation and total recovery from her illness. According to the certificate, she was found fit to resume her course and studies from 23-5-1989 onwards. 10. Though the respondent has not stated in the counter-affidavit that the Certificate is not a genuine one; I am able to see that there are some infirmities on the face of the Certificate itself. While the Certificate states that the petitioner was ill only up to 22-3-1989, it is not known how it also says that she is fit to resume her course and studies from 23-5-1989 onwards. If her illness had come to an end in March, 1989, she must have been deemed to be fit from that time to continue the course. The certificate has been issued long after the relevant period, i.e., only on 23-5-1989. 11. No doubt, the statement in the affidavit of the petitioner is in accordance with the certificate referred to above. But the facts which I have referred to earlier show that the petitioner's illness, if any, had come to an end in February, 1989, and it was only on 17-3-1989 she chose to meet the 2nd respondent and state that she was willing to rejoin the course. Having regard to the above facts which do not prove any one consistent case, it is not possible to issue a writ in favour of the petitioner as prayed for by her. No doubt Rule 11(d) speaks of an order of termination being passed and it does not speak about any 'deemed termination'. As pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the language used in the letter dated 19-4-1989 is inappropriate. The fact that the petitioner was remaining absent for a period of more than three months cannot be disputed. So, she had incurred the disqualification mentioned in Rule 11 (d). Instead of stating that her training course was being terminated by the letter, the Superintendent chose to use the terms "Deemed to have been terminated". Just because of the wrong terminology used in the Order, it cannot be said that the Order is not one of termination of the training of the petitioner. Instead of stating that her training course was being terminated by the letter, the Superintendent chose to use the terms "Deemed to have been terminated". Just because of the wrong terminology used in the Order, it cannot be said that the Order is not one of termination of the training of the petitioner. Since there are sufficient reasons to hold that the petitioner has incurred the disqualification mentioned in Rule 11(d), the letter dated 19-4-1989 terminating the course of the petitioner is a proper one, and it cannot be challenged by the petitioner herein. 12. The petitioner cannot as a matter of right, invoke Rule 12 of the said Medical Code. Having regard to the facts referred to above, it cannot be said that the petitioner had proved her illness for the period mentioned by her. There is also no explanation on the part of the petitioner as to why she did not send any reply to the letter dated 13-2-1989. Whatever may be the illness of the petitioner, she could have certainly sent a reply (letter) to the concerned authorities referring to her illness and praying for the grant of further leave after 31-12-1988. 13. In view of the laches on the part of the petitioner and also in view of the circumstances referred to above, I am of the view that the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available to the petitioner. Hence the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.