ORDER K. S. Bakthavatsalam 1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows: ...to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to join duty as Medical Officer, Panchayat Union Dispensary, Idaikal, Kadayanallur Panchayat Union, Nellai Kattambomman District... 2. The petitioner's name was forwarded by the Employment Exchange to the first respondent Panchayat Union for consideration for the post of Medical Officer and he was called for an interview. An order of appointment was issued to the petitioner on 13.9.1984, and that order was passed after it was approved by the Panchayat Union Council in its meeting held on 13.9.1984. Accordingly the petitioner joined duty on 21.9.1984 and the appointment of the petitioner as Medical Officer, Panchayat. Union Dispensary, Idaikal, Kadayanallur Panchayat Union was approved by the Director of Medical Services by his order dated 10.5.1985. This has been done on a report of the of the District Medical Officer, Tirunelveli District dated 18.4.1985. The petitioner's services were also regualarised with effect from 21.9.1984, according to the allegation made in the affidavit. The petitioner also alleges in the affidavit that he became a permanent employee of Kadayanallur Panchayat Union as Medical Officer. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that he applied to the first respondent herein for permission to join post Graduates Degree course in M.D. (General Medicine), that the application of the petitioner was forwarded by the first respondent to the Controller of Examinations, Selection Committee for P.G. Courses, Kilpauk Medical College Campus, Madras and that the petitioner was selected for undergoing the P.G. Course (3 years) since he had by then put in only less than five years of service. When the petitioner was selected on 31.5.1986 for the Post Graduate Course, he applied for grant of study leave with effect from 11.6.1986 for three years. The petitioner's application was dated 8.6.1986. It is alleged in the affidavit that on 1.6.1986 the Commissioner, Panchayat Union Kadayanallur wrote a letter to the Director of Rural Development, Madras, the fourth respondent herein, recommending the sanction of study leave to the petitioner for 3 years, with effect from 11.6.1986 without pay. The petitioner's application was dated 8.6.1986. It is alleged in the affidavit that on 1.6.1986 the Commissioner, Panchayat Union Kadayanallur wrote a letter to the Director of Rural Development, Madras, the fourth respondent herein, recommending the sanction of study leave to the petitioner for 3 years, with effect from 11.6.1986 without pay. In that letter, the first respondent also requested the third respondent that his action of relieving the petitioner from the post of Medical Officer on the after-noon of 10.6.1986 enabling him to join the Post Graduate course from 11.6.1986 may also be ratified. It is also alleged in the affidavit that on 8.6.1986, an order was passed by the first respondent herein relieving the petitioner from the post of Medical Officer on the after-noon of 10.6.1986. It is alleged in the affidavit that on 25.11.1986, the Additional Director of Rural Development, Madras sanctioned the leave to the petitioner for three years from 11.6.1986 (Extraordinary leave without pay and allowances) and also ratified the action of the first respondent relieving the petitioner from the post of Medical Officer. It is seen that the Service Register of the petitioner herein has been sent to the Director of Medical Services and Family Welfare along with his transfer. It is alleged in the affidavit that pursuant to the sanction of the leave and also the relieving order of the first respondent dated 8.6.1986, the petitioner joined the Post Graduate course and completed the course on 31.3.1989. It is alleged that thereafter, on 1.4.1989, the petitioner submitted his joining to the first respondent herein and that the petitioner was informed by the first respondent that the request of the petitioner will be intimated, since the matter is under correspondence with the fourth respondent and the third respondent herein. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the petitioner was not given any reply and that the inaction of the first respondent in permitting the petitioner to join duty causes great hardship. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the petitioner was not given any reply and that the inaction of the first respondent in permitting the petitioner to join duty causes great hardship. It is also alleged in the affidavit that he was duly selected and appointed as Medical Officer by the first respondent after his name was sponsored by the Professional Employment Exchange, Madras, that his services were regularised by the respondents, that the petitioner has become a permanent employee of the Kadayanallur Panchayat Union and that therefore the refusal by the first respondent to permit the petitioner herein to join as Medical Officer is arbitrary. It is alleged in the affidavit that he applied for permission to join Post-Graduate Course in M.D.(General Medicine) to the first respondent which was duly sanctioned by the first respondent by forward (sic) the same to the Controller of Examinations, Selection Committee for Post-Graduate Course, Madras, and that having permitted the petitioner to undergo the Post-Graduate Course, it is not open to the first respondent now to refuse the petitioner to permit to join the post. The petitioner further alleges in the affidavit that when his application for leave for three years in order to undergo Post-Graduate Course was duly approved by the Additional Director of Rural Development, the first respondent cannot now refuse to allow the petitioner to join duty. It is further submitted by the petitioner in the affidavit that his services were regularised, that he has also completed his course on 31.3.1989 and that he is entitled to join duty in the post of Medical Officer for Panchayat Union Dispensary, Idaikal, Kadayanallur Panchayat Union. With these allegations, the petitioner has come up before this Court with the prayer stated supra. 3. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 3.7.1989. 4. When the matter came up before this Court on an earlier occasion, it was brought to the notice of this Court that one Dr. C. Muthukrishnan has been appointed as Medical Officer in the Kadayanallur Panchayat "Union Dispensary. The said Dr. Muthukrishnan has filed a petition to implead himself as party-respondent in the writ petition and accordingly by order dated 8.1.1990, in W.M.P.No. 19987 of 1989, the said Dr. C. Muthukrishnan has been added as party-respondent and ranked as second respondent in the writ petition. The said Dr. Muthukrishnan has filed a petition to implead himself as party-respondent in the writ petition and accordingly by order dated 8.1.1990, in W.M.P.No. 19987 of 1989, the said Dr. C. Muthukrishnan has been added as party-respondent and ranked as second respondent in the writ petition. Respondents 3 to 5 have also been added as party-respondents, by order dated 18.1.1990 in W.M.P.No. 320 of 1990. 5. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed by respondents 1 and 3. It is stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent that no relief can be granted against the first respondents inasmuch as the study leave has not been sanctioned by the Panchayat Union Council as prescribed under Section 58 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958. The fact regarding the appointment of the petitioner herein as Medical Officer, Panchayat Union Dispensary, Idaikal, Kadyanallur Panchayat Union is not denied in the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent. The fact that the appointment of the petitioner as Medical Officer was ratified by the Director of Medical Services by order dated 10.5.1985 is also not denied in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent herein. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that it is true that the petitioner herein joined duty on 21.9.1984, and that his services were regularised in the said post with effect from 21.9.1984 by the first respondent, by its order dated 8-10-1985. However, the first respondent in the counter affidavit, denied the claim of the petitioner herein that ha has become a permanent employee of the Panchayat Union concerned because of the regularisation. It is claimed in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has completed only one year and eight months service and that he had not even completed the minimum two years service for the purpose of declaring his probation, and as such he was only a temporary employee when he left for his higher studies. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that after completion of service as Medical Officer for one year and eight months the petitioner submitted an application for the selection of M.D. Post Graduate Course, that the said application was forwarded to the concerned officers, and that subsequently he was selected for the Post-Graduate Course. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that after completion of service as Medical Officer for one year and eight months the petitioner submitted an application for the selection of M.D. Post Graduate Course, that the said application was forwarded to the concerned officers, and that subsequently he was selected for the Post-Graduate Course. It is also claimed in the counter-affidavit that on the recommendation of Commissioner, Kadayanallur Panchayat Union, Madras by order dated 25.11.1986 has sanctioned the study leave for three years with effect from 11.6.1986 and also ratified the action of the Commissioner. It is further claimed in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent that the approval of the Panchayat Union Council had not been obtained in this case under Section 58(c) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 reference to Tamil Nadu Leave Rules 23(a)(f) is made in the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit, that the petitioner is not eligible for either extraordinary leave without allowances or study leave, that the grant of leave to the petitioner is not valid in law, that the petitioner being in Panchayat Union Service, the competent authority to grant study leave, if eligible, is only the Panchayat Union Council, and that the petitioner cannot claim any rights to the post of Medical Officer since the Panchayat Union Council has not passed any resolution granting him study leave nor has the petitioner executed bond agreeing to come back and serve the Panchayat Union. It is further claimed in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, that as the Panchayat Union Council was never consulted it was open to them to appoint another person and as such the . second respondent herein who is now working as Medical Officer, has been selected by the Committee and appointed and posted in the said office on 27.8.1986 and that the said appointment of the second respondent was ratified by the Directorate of Medical Services by order dated 5.10.1987. second respondent herein who is now working as Medical Officer, has been selected by the Committee and appointed and posted in the said office on 27.8.1986 and that the said appointment of the second respondent was ratified by the Directorate of Medical Services by order dated 5.10.1987. It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent that the services of the second respondent have been regularised by order of the first respondent dated 27.10.1987 with effect from 27.8.1986, that the second respondent was declared to have satisfactorily completed his probation on 28.8.1988 by its order dated 16.9.1988 and that the present Panchayat Union Council has also resolved in its resolution dated 25.1.1989 to permit the second respondent to continue as Medical Officer, Idaikal. It is further claimed in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent that mere regularsiation of service will not confer permanent status on (sic) petitioner, that the petitioner has only completed one year and eight months service and under the Rules his probation has not been declared and as such he is not entitled to the study leave of three years. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent that the Panchayat Union Council has not passed any resolution approving the study leave, that the Government of Tamil Nadu has not granted the study leave as required under the Rules, that the petitioner herein has not executed a bond as required under Rules and as such the petitioner cannot have any right to the post of Medical Officer at Idaikal, in the Kadayanallur Panchayat Union. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that under the provision of the Panchayat Union Council there is only one post of Medical Officer, that it is not possible to comply with the claim of the petitioner herein, and that the Panchayat Union cannot afford to have two Medical Officers as the financial resources are very meagre. It is also claimed in the counter-affidavit that the first respondent who is only the Commissioner of the Panchayat Union concerned, cannot appoint the petitioner herein without disturbing the present incumbent, the second respondent. 6. The third respondent has filed a counter-affidavit. It is also claimed in the counter-affidavit that the first respondent who is only the Commissioner of the Panchayat Union concerned, cannot appoint the petitioner herein without disturbing the present incumbent, the second respondent. 6. The third respondent has filed a counter-affidavit. It is claimed in the counter-affidavit that the first respondent is the appointing authority for the post of Medical Officer as per Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Union Councils Medical and Public Health Service Rule, 1976, that no appointment shall be made without the prior approval of the appointment committee, that in respect of the appointment of the Assistant Surgeon/Medical Officer, the Director of Health Services and Family Welfare shall be consulted and that all the above mentioned conditions have been complied with at the time of appointment of the petitioner. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent, that as per Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Union Councils Medical and Public Health Service Rules, 1976, the Assistant Surgeon Medical Officer is expected to complete the period of probation within a period of three years to become an approved probationer and full member of the Panchayat Union Council, that as per the above Rule, the petitioner is not an approved probationer and as such he cannot claim a right as that of a full member of the Panchayat Union. The fact that the first respondent had addressed a letter to the third respondent requesting him to ratify the action in having relieved the petitioner from 10.6.1986 A.N. and the sanction granted by the Additional Director of Rural Development Department by order dated 25.11.1986 and also ratifying the action of the first respondent in having relieved the petitioner from the post of Medical Officer on 10.6.1986 A.N. is not denied. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the first respondent by letter dated 10.4.1987 requested the third respondent requesting him to treat the period of leave sanctioned for the petitioner as on duty, so as to enable the petitioner to avail the increments, family pension and other benefits entitled to him. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the first respondent by letter dated 10.4.1987 requested the third respondent requesting him to treat the period of leave sanctioned for the petitioner as on duty, so as to enable the petitioner to avail the increments, family pension and other benefits entitled to him. It is further stated that based on the proposal of the first respondent, the third respondent had also considered the same pursuant to G.O.Ms.No. 728 Health and Family Welfare, dated 20.4.1985 and sent it to the Government for getting necessary orders as early as on 26.7.1988 i.e. even before the petitioner submitting his joining report to the first respondent. It is also stated in the counter affidavit, that the recommendation of the third respondent for treating the period of leave granted to the petitioner as on duty is under consideration of the Government, that the order of the Government is awaited, that immediately after the Government Order is received the same would be communicated to the office of the first respondent and that thereafter it is open to the Panchayat Union Council and as well as to the first respondent to give effect to the order of the Government. It is also stated in the counter affidavit, that the first respondent is the appointing authority as per Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Union Councils Medical and Public Health Service Rules, 1976, that he has to get necessary prior approval from the appointment Committee i.e. from Panchayat Union Council. It is further claimed in the counter affidavit that when the petitioner was relieved on 10.6.1986, the first respondent ought to have obtained the prior permission and approval of the Panchayat Union Council, that the first respondent did not choose to do so, and that the first respondent did not obtain any prior approval of the Panchayat Union Council for forwarding his recommendation to the third respondent to grant leave to the petitioner. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the Additional Director had granted leave to the petitioner only on the bona fide impression that the first respondent would have have obtained permission from the Council of the first respondent herein. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the Panchayat Union Council was kept in dark and that they are not aware of the study leave granted to the petitioner. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the Panchayat Union Council was kept in dark and that they are not aware of the study leave granted to the petitioner. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that immediately after the petitioner was relieved another Doctor Dr. Muthukrishnan, the second respondent herein was selected by the Committee and appointed by the first respondent by "order dated 27.8.1986, and that he had completed his probation on 28.8.1988 and that thereafter the present Panchayat Union Council has passed a resolution on 25.1.1989 and permitted to continue as Medical Officer, Idaikal. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that at the time of passing a resolution, the first respondent ought to have brought to the knowledge of the Panchayat Union Council and appraised the fact of leave granted to the petitioner and that since the said fact was not brought to the Union Council, the Union Council has passed a resolution in the interest of the Panchayat General Public. It is submitted in the counter-affidavit that as on date the second respondent herein was allowed to continue by way of Panchayat Union resolution dated 25.1.1989. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent that there is no vacancy either in the first respondent Panchayat Union or in the Nellai-Kattabomman District and that this fact was duly verified from the Collector, Nellai Kattabomman District in his telex message dated 29.1.1990. It is further submitted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner's grievances cannot be complied with since he has not executed any guarantee bond agreeing to come back and serve in the Panchayat Union. 7. The second respondent, who was impleaded as party-respondent, has filed a separate counter-affidavit stating that the statement made by the petitioner in para 3 of the affidavit to the effect that he became a permanent employee of Kadayanallur Panchayat Union as Medical Officer is not correct. It is also claimed in the counter-affidavit that the appointment of the petitioner had not been preceded by the consultation with the Director of Medical Services, that post-factor consultation appears to have been made, that in that context the appointment is said have been in order, and that in any event no regularisation could take place in violation of the Rules and Regulations governing the service condition of medical officers under the Panchayat Union Councils. It is further claimed in the counter affidavit that under the Rules and Regulations, the Panchayat Union Council alone has to grant study leave, if at all one is entitled to, and that it is a matter of record that on the application of the petitioner herein for grant of study leave, the Commissioner had made notes that he was not entitled to the grant of leave and that he could as well tender his resignation if he desired to pursue higher studies. It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit that for reasons which are extraneous, the Commissioner had passed on the matter of grant of leave to the Director of Rural Development, Madras the fourth respondent herein, that the Additional Director of Rural Development had affinity to the petitioner's father and had sanctioned the leave in an illegal manner. It is also claimed in the counter affidavit that the Additional Director of Rural Development is not the authority to sanction leave, that the leave so granted cannot be relied upon by the petitioner herein, that the fact that the petitioner was relieved anticipating the sanction of leave itself will show that the whole thing has been pre-arranged in violation of the Rules and Regulations relating to the service conditions, and that the application for leave, the sanction of leave and the order relieving him are all therefore procured in violation of the Rules and Regulations and they cannot clothe the petitioner with any right. It is categorically stated in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent that the petitioner had left without due and lawful authority and that it was treated that he abandoned the post. The fact that the petitioner has not chosen to implead the Panchayat Union Council and the second respondent herein has been stated in the counter affidavit claiming that it will show that the petitioner has not invoked this Court's jurisdiction with clean hands. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the second respondent herein has joined duty on 27.8.1986, that his probation has been declared on 16.9.1988 and that as on date he had put in service of about three years. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the second respondent herein has joined duty on 27.8.1986, that his probation has been declared on 16.9.1988 and that as on date he had put in service of about three years. It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit that in so far as the qualifications to hold the post are concerned, both the petitioner and the second respondent herein are qualified, that the Medical Services under the Panchayat Union Council is a separate cadre governed by both General and Special Rules, that the General Rules are Panchayat Union Councils Establishment Rules, 1964, framed under Section 58 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act which provide for the service conditions. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that insofar as the present writ petition is. concerned, the relevant rules are those relating to appointment of an employee on probation and the completion or otherwise of probation and confirmation, and that these Rules provide for the application of the service conditions governing government servants relating to certain matters to the employees of Panchayat Union Council. It is further stated that the Special Rules are Panchayat Union Council Medical and Public Health Service Rules, 1976, and that they exclusively apply to the Medical Services under the Panchayat Union Council. It is further pointed out in the counter affidavit that under the said Special Rules, the post in reference falls under Branch II Public Health, that the qualifications to hold the post are prescribed therein and that the Rules also provide for appointment on probation, the probation period being two years on duty within continuous period of three years. It is also stated that under Rule 13 of the General Rules, provision is made for termination of probation. It is also stated that under Rule 13 of the General Rules, provision is made for termination of probation. It is further claimed in the counter affidavit that at the end of the period if the services of an appointee is not satisfactory, he should be discharged, that if the Commissioner decided that the probationer is suitable for confirmation he shall as soon as possible issue an order declaring the probationer to have satisfactorily completed the period of probation on the date of expiry of the period of probation and that if no such order is issued within six months from the date on which he is eligible for such declaration, the probationer shall be deemed to have satisfactorily completed his probation on the date of expiry of the prescribed or extended the period of probation. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the Rules relating to grant of leave have not been framed under Section 58(2) of the Act, that under Rule 27 it has been provided that the condition of the services of all officers and servants in Panchayat Union Council shall be in such cases the same as those of government servants of similar standard and status. A reference is made to annexure to Fundamental Rules 84 which rules are called Tamil Nadu Study Leave Rules, 1965 in the counter-affidavit. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that under Rule 4 thereof the authority to grant study leave is the Government in all cases, and as such in so far as the present case is concerned, the authority to grant study leave has to be traced with reference to Rule 27(2) of the Panchayat Union Councils Establishment Rules read with Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Study Leave Rules. It is also stated that it is the Panchayat Union Council which is the proper authority to consider and grant of leave the council having been equivated with the Government in terms of Rule 27(2), that the matter of grant of leave was never pleaded before the Panchayat Union Council and that an officer of the Panchayat Union Council cannot arrogate to himself the power to relieve a person from his post and that any act so done cannot be recognised in law. It is further claimed in the counter affidavit that the Panchayat Union Council has treated the post as having fallen vacant, that the Panchayat Union Council has instructed the Commissioner to call for applications from the Employment Exchange, that those applications have been processed by the appointment committee and a new appointment has been made and that by the aforesaid process the Panchayat Union Council has accepted the abandonment by the petitioner herein. It is further claimed in the counter affidavit that even though he is not entitled to any study leave, assuming that he has availed of leave and continues to be in the employment of Panchayat Union Council, it cannot be said that he is permanent employee of the Panchayat Union Council since the petitioner having not completed his probation he should in such event be presumed to be a probationer. In so far as the present case is concerned, it is claimed in the counter-affidavit, that there are two candidates one who has completed his probation and another who has not completed his probation, and in such a situation Rule 15 of the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Union Council Establishment Rules will come into operation and it is open to the Panchayat Union Council to act under Rule 15. It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit that insofar as the prayer in the writ petition is concerned, on the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be granted. It is further claimed that the petitioner is no more in the services of Panchayat Union Council, that assuming he is in the services of Panchayat Union Council it should be deemed that he is still a probationer, that a probationer has no right to hold the post, that the petitioner is a probationer who has not completed even two years of service and as such he is not entitled to grant of leave. It is further claimed in the counter affidavit that since the leave has not been validly sanctioned, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefits of rules relaxing the conditions in the matter of study leave applicable to Government Servants. It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner cannot be treated as a permanent employee of the Panchayat Union Council by any stretch of imagination. 8. Mr. It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner cannot be treated as a permanent employee of the Panchayat Union Council by any stretch of imagination. 8. Mr. Murugesan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterates the contentions raised in the affidavit that in so far as the petitioner has come back after the study leave, a duty is cast upon the Panchayat Union to allow the petitioner to join duty. The Learned Counsel further contends that when once the study leave has been sanctioned and the petitioner left for higher studies, it is not open to the Panchayat Union to refuse the post to which he is entitled to. The learned Counsel further contends that there is only one post of Medical Officer in Idaikal Panchayat Union Council, that the petitioner is entitled to join the said post after the expiry of study leave and that the subsequent appointment of the second respondent is not valid in law. The learned Counsel further states that the Additional Director of Rural Development has sanctioned study leave for three years with effect from 11.6.1986 without pay and allowances, that he ratified the action of the Commissioner, that the petitioner was employed through Professional Employment Exchange, that his services were regularised by the said Panchayat Union and that the refusal of the Panchayat Union to permit the petitioner to join duty as Medical Officer is arbitrary. 9. Mr. K.T. Palpandian, the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent herein contends that the petitioner cannot claim the relief as asked for in this petition, that the post is not vacant as on date, and that the second respondent having been appointed validly and having completed his probation to that post, it cannot be said that the said post is vacant now so as to allow the petitioner herein to join duly. The learned Counsel also contends that the second respondent was called for an interview on the ground that the petitioner has gone on leave for higher studies and as such the said post is vacant. A reference to the resolution of the Panchayat Union Council dated 18.8.1986 is made by the learned Counsel. The learned Counsel further argues that the petitioner is a probationer and that he is not entitled to any study leave. The learned Counsel also contends that the petitioner has no right to the post. A reference to the resolution of the Panchayat Union Council dated 18.8.1986 is made by the learned Counsel. The learned Counsel further argues that the petitioner is a probationer and that he is not entitled to any study leave. The learned Counsel also contends that the petitioner has no right to the post. The learned Counsel further argues that no regularisation can be made unless a positive action is taken by the respondent Panchayat Union to show that the petitioner has completed probation. The learned Counsel refers to the decision in State of Punjab v. Sukhbans Singh . The learned Counsel also states that the Government alone can sanction the leave and it is an admitted case that the Government has not sanctioned the leave to the petitioner in this case. He refers to Rule 24(2) of General Rules and Rule 4 of Leave Rules. The learned Counsel also refers to Rules 103(a)(ii), 104 and 85 with regard to grant of leave for probationers. The learned Counsel elaborately refers to Section 58 of Panchayat Rules for Establishment and Rules 37, 27(2). The learned Counsel also refers to Manual or Panchayat Administration Part -II and refers to Branch II, Rules 2, 3 and 5 and submits that the petitioner has not completed two years of probation period. The learned Counsel further argues that since the petitioner is a probationer he has no right to the post, that only three months leave can be granted by the respondent Panchayat Union and not three years leave can be granted, even presuming that the master-servant relationship survived. The learned Counsel further states that the petitioner is still a probationer and he has not completed two years service. The learned Counsel also refers to the decision in (A.I.R.1971 S.L.R.334). 10. Mr. K. Sridhar, the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent contends that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in as much as grant of study leave is prescribed under Section 58 of Panchayat Act 1958. The learned Counsel further argues that the then Commissioner in violation of the Rules recommended and forwarded the application of the petitioner to the Director of Rural Development for sanction of study leave and relieved the petitioner on the afternoon of 10.6.1986 in anticipation of the sanction of study leave and that such an action is not provided under the Rules. The learned Counsel also argues that the Additional Director has sanctioned study leave for three years and ratified the action of the then Commissioner and that the approval of the Panchayat Union Council had not been obtained in the above transaction as required under Section 58(c) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1958. The learned Counsel further argues that as per Tamil Nadu Leave Rules 23(a)(i) a temporary government servant is entitled to only 180 days extraordinary leave without pay and allowance, that as per F.R.85 and appendix to Tamil Nadu Study Leave Rules, study leave is permissible only to a person who has completed five years of service and that a bond should be executed as specified guaranteeing that he will return and serve the Panchayat Union. The learned Counsel further argues that the grant of leave to the petitioner is not valid in law, that the petitioner cannot have any claim to the post as of right since the Panchayat Union Council has not passed any resolution. The (sic) learned Counsel also states that the petitioner has not executed any bond agreeing to come back and serve the Union. The learned Counsel further argues that since the Panchayat Union Council was never consulted, it was open to them to appoint another competent person and as such the second respondent herein was appointed on 27.8.1986. The learned Counsel further points out that the appointment of Second respondent herein was ratified on 5.10.1987 by the third respondent, that his services were regularised on 27.10.1987, that he was declared to have satisfactorily completed his probation on 28.8.1988 and that the present Panchayat Union Council resolved in its resolution dated 25.1.1989 to permit him to continue as Medical Officer, Idaikal. The argument of the learned Counsel is that the petitioner has completed only one year and eight months and his probation has not been declared and as such he is not entitled to the study leave for the three years. The learned Counsel points out that there is only one post of Medical Officer, that the Panchayat cannot afford to have two medical officers and that in any event the Commissioner cannot appoint the petitioner without disturbing the present incumbent and as such the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. 11. I have considered the arguments of Mr. Murugesan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. 11. I have considered the arguments of Mr. Murugesan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.T. Palpandian, the learned Counsel for the second respondent and of Mr. K. Sridhnr, learned Counsel for the first respondent. 12. The facts as narrated above show that this case is a very peculiar one. The petitioner has been appointed to the post by Panchayat Union Council and joined duty in the month of September, 1984. The said appointment was approved by the Director of Medical Services by his order dated 10,5.1985. When the petitioner applied for permission to join to the post Graduate Course M.D.(Medicine), his application was forwarded by the then Commissioner of the respondent Panchayat Union, in June, 1986. The then Commissioner wrote a letter to the fourth respondent recommending sanction of study leave to the petitioner for a period of three years and relieved the petitioner from his post on 10.6.1986. In that letter the then Commissioner has also requested to ratify the said action of him relieving the petitioner from services on 10.6.1986. The Additional Director of Rural Development, Madras sanctioned the study leave to the petitioner for a period of three years and also ratified the action of Commissioner of the respondent Panchayat Union relieving the petitioner. These facts are made very clear from the perusal of a Service Register of the petitioner herein, which has been produced before me. 13. When matters stood thus, the Panchayat Union Council by resolution dated 18.8.1986, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has gone on study leave, appointed the second respondent herein as a Medical Officer to the post which has fallen vacant due to the study leave granted to the petitioner herein. This was also ratified by the Directorate of Medical Services by order dated 5.10.1987 and his probation was also declared by order dated 16.9.1988 and the present Panchayat Union Council has also resolved in its resolution dated 25.1.1989 to permit the second respondent to continue as Medical Officer, Idaikal. What is to be done in such a situation is the question. There is only one post. A person has gone on study leave, granted by the then Commissioner of the Panchayat Union and it was approved by the higher authorities, that is to say, the Additional Director of Rural Development. What is to be done in such a situation is the question. There is only one post. A person has gone on study leave, granted by the then Commissioner of the Panchayat Union and it was approved by the higher authorities, that is to say, the Additional Director of Rural Development. At the same time, the Panchayat Union Council, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has gone on study leave and in the vacancy caused, appointed the second respondent herein and now passed a resolution in the year 1989 to continue him as Medical Officer. 14. The relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 can be looked into. Section 58 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1958) provides conditions of officers and servants. Sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the Act, 1958 invokes the Government to make Rules and Sub-section (2) provides for the power to frame regulations in respect of officers and servants on the staff of the Panchayat Union Council regulating the grant of leave, leave allowances, acting allowances etc. The Tamil Nadu Panchayat Union Councils (Medical and Public Health) Service Rules, 1976 are applicable ... to the case of the petitioner herein. Rule 2(ii) defines 'probationer' thus: Probationer means a member of the service who has not completed his probation Rule 2(3) of the said Rules defines approved probationer thus: approved probationer in a category means a member of that category who has satisfactorily completed his probation and awaits appointment as a full member of such category. The said Service Rules consist of two branches. The post which is in question to be decided here, falls under Branch II. The said Service Rules consist of two branches. The post which is in question to be decided here, falls under Branch II. In part III, Branch II, Rule 3 provides for appointing authority which is to the following effect: Appointing authority: The appointing authority for the different categories of posts shall be the Commissioner: Provided that no appointment shall be made without the prior approval of the Appointments Committee; Provided further that in respect of the appointment to the posts of Medical Officer (Maternity and Child Health) Grade -- I, Medical Officer (Maternity and Child Health) Grade -- II, Resident Matron (Maternity and Child Health) Health Visitor and Maternity Assistant (Maternity and Child Welfare Centre) the Additional Director of Health Services and Family Welfare shall be consulted and that, however, temporary appointments for period not exceeding three months may be made in consultation with the District Health Officer concerned. The Additional Director of Health Services and Family Welfare shall be consulted, if the appointment is continued beyond a period of three months. In respect of the appointment to the post of Health Assistant, the District Health Officer concerned shall be consulted. Rule 5 of the said Rules prescribes the period of probation, i.e. a period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years. Under the Panchayat Union Councils Establishment Rules, 1964 Rule 11 Provides the period of probation, which is a period of two years out of a continuous period of three years. Rule 13(a)(b) provides for termination of probation and Rule 18 speaks of confirmation. It is to be seen that if no such order is issued within six months from the date on which he is eligible for such declaration, the probationer shall be deemed to have satisfactorily completed his probation on the date of expiry of the prescribed or extended period of probation except in cases where serious charges are pending. Rule 15 of the said Rules, provides for order of discharge or reversion of probationers due to want of vacancy. Rule 15 of the said Rules, provides for order of discharge or reversion of probationers due to want of vacancy. Rule 18 provides 'confirmation' to the following effect: A person who has completed his period of probation under Rule 11(1) in a grade shall be confirmed at the earliest opportunity according to his seniority as determined under Explanations (1) and (3) to Rule 15 where the date by which seniority is determined is the same in the case of two or more such members of a grade, their seniority, inter se, shall be determined in the manner laid down in the last two sentences of Explanation (1) to Rule 15 or in Explanation (3) to that rule. Explanation: An approved probationer may be confirmed in a post with retrospective effect from the date on which the vacancy arose or from the date from which he was continuously on duty in that post or in a higher post, whichever is later. For the purposes of this rule, an approved probationer on leave shall be deemed to be on duty in the grade concerned, if he would have been on duty in each grade or in a higher grade but for his absence on leave. Rule 27 of the Rules relating to establishment Panchayat Union Councils provides for the conditions of Service, where no regulations have been framed under Sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the Act. Rule 27 of the Rule runs as follows: Conditions of service similar to that of Government servants: (1) Save as otherwise provided in these rules, or in any other rules in force for the time being the conditions of service of all officers and servants of a Panchayat Union Council shall, where no regulations have been framed by the Panchayat Union Council under Sub-section (2) of the Section 58 of the Act be the same as those of Government servants of similar standing and status in respect of the following matters, namely: (a) salary and allowances; (b) leave and leave allowances; (c) travelling allowance and (d) Superannuation and retirement. (2) Any powers assigned to the Government and the head of the department in the provisions applicable to such Government servants shall be exercised by the Panchayat Union Council and the Commissioner respectively. 15. Rule 84 of the Fundamental Rules of the Government speaks of the granting of leave to the following effect: ... (2) Any powers assigned to the Government and the head of the department in the provisions applicable to such Government servants shall be exercised by the Panchayat Union Council and the Commissioner respectively. 15. Rule 84 of the Fundamental Rules of the Government speaks of the granting of leave to the following effect: ... Leave may be granted to Government servants, on such terms as the Government may, by General order prescribe, to enable them to study scientific, technical or similar problems or to undergo special courses of instruction. Such leave shall not be debited against the leave account.... Rule 103 under instructions 2 to Rule 103(a) of the Fundamental Rules speaks of leave which can be granted to any other Government servant without a lien and it runs as follows: ... Leave may be granted to any other Government servant without a lien on a permanent post while officiating in a post, provided that the grant of the leave involves no extra expense to the Government. On this condition, such a Government servant may be granted - (a) leave on leave-salary equivalent to average pay up to one-eleventh of the period spent on duty, subject to a maximum of four months at a time, or (b) on medical Certificate, leave on leave-salary equivalent to half average pay for three months at any one time, or (c) extraordinary leave under Rule 85 for three months at any one time.. F.R.104 speaks of the leave admissible to persons who are officers to the Government servants during the period of probation. Annexure to F.R.84 (Appendix-II) defines Study Leave Rules. Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Study Leave Rules, 1965, provides for conditions for grant of study leave it runs as follows: Conditions for grant of study leave: (1) Subject to the conditions specified in these rules, study leave may be granted to a Government servant with due regard to the exigencies of public service to enable him to undergo, in or out of India, a special course of study consisting of higher studies or specialised training in a professional or a technical subject having a direct and close connection with the sphere of his duty. (2) Study leave may also be granted - (i) for a course of training or study tour in which a Government servant may not attend a regular academic or semi-academic course if the course of training or the study tour is certified to be of definite advantage to Government from the point of view of public interest and is related to the sphere of duties of the Government servant; (ii) for the purposes of studies connected with the frame work or background of public administration, subject to the condition that the Government servant shall submit, on his return a full report on the work done by him which on study leave; and (iii) for the studies which may not be closely or directly connected with the work of a Government servant which are capable of widening his mind in a manner likely to improve his abilities as a civil servant and to equip himself better to collaborate with those employed in other branches of the public service... Rule 3(3)(i) of the said Rules states that study leave shall not be granted unless it is certified by the Head of the department concerned that the proposed course of study or training shall be of definite advantage from the point of view of public interest. It can be seen from Rule 3(5)(ii)(iii) that the study leave shall not ordinarily be granted to a Government servant who has rendered less than five years' service under the Government or who does not hold a gazetted post under the Government, or who is due to retire or has the option to retire from the Government service within three years of the date on which he expected to return to duty after the expiry of the leave. 16. A close reading of the Rules mentioned above, clearly shows that the then Commissioner of the Panchayat Union ought to have obtained a permission of Council before relieving the petitioner herein. Admittedly, it was not done. But, unfortunately the then Commissioner has granted leave to the petitioner and also relieved him anticipating the proceedings of the third respondent. The said action of the then Commissioner in having relieved the petitioner from the post of Medical Officer was ratified by the Additional Director of Rural Development, sanctioning the study leave to the petitioner herein. It is seen from the records that the Panchayat Union Council was kept in dark. The said action of the then Commissioner in having relieved the petitioner from the post of Medical Officer was ratified by the Additional Director of Rural Development, sanctioning the study leave to the petitioner herein. It is seen from the records that the Panchayat Union Council was kept in dark. On a careful perusal of the file, I find that when the appointment for the second respondent herein was done, the fact that the petitioner herein had gone on leave for higher studies has been considered. It has been specifically mentioned in the said resolution that the appointment is made in the vacancy caused due to the petitioner who has gone on leave for higher studies. If a literal construction is given to the working resolution, I am of the view that the Panchayat Union Council was aware of the fact that the petitioner has gone on leave and that the second respondent was appointed only in the leave vacancy caused by the petitioner. I am not able to agree with the argument of Mr. K.T. Palpandian, the learned Counsel for the second respondent that the petitioner herein has abandoned the post, which is nobody's case either of the Commissioner or of other respondents. In my view, the entire proceedings appointing the second respondent cannot be said to be valid in law, in view of the fact that there was no vacant post. Similarly because the petitioner herein had gone on leave, it does not mean that the said post has fallen vacant. It has been pointed out in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent that the matter is pending before the Government, that the first respondent herein by letter dated 10.4.1987 requested the third respondent to treat the period of leave sanctioned for the petitioner as on duty and that the third respondent had also considered the same in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 728 Health and Family Welfare dated 20.4.1985 and sent the same to Government for necessary orders. No. 728 Health and Family Welfare dated 20.4.1985 and sent the same to Government for necessary orders. I find from the file that the recommendations of the respondents to treat the leave granted to the petitioner as on duty is under consideration of the Government, the order of the Government is awaited and immediately after the Government order is received, the same would be communicated to the Panchayat Union Council and it is open to the Panchayat Union Council to give effect to the order of the Government. As I have already stated, there was no vacancy in which the second respondent could be appointed. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh can be applied to the facts of the case on hand. In that cases, the Supreme Court has observed as follows (at p.525). ... The question then is as to the effect of a void of confirmation. When an order is void on the ground that the authority which made it had no power to make it cannot give rise to any legal rights, and as suggested by the learned Advocate-General, any person could have challenged the status of the respondents as Tahsildars by instituting proceedings for the issue of a writ of quo warranto under Article 226 of the Constitution. Had such proceedings been taken it would not have been possible for the respondents to justify their status as permanent Tahsildars and the High Court would have issued a writ of quo warranto depriving the respondents of their status as permanent Tahsildars. Now, where the Government itself realises that on order made by an authority under the Government is void, is it powerless to do anything in the matter? Is it bound to give effect to a void order and treat as confirmed Tahsildars persons who have no legal right to be treated as confirmed Tahsildar? Is it not open to the Government to treat the confirmation as void and notify the persons affected and the public in general of the fact of its having done so by issuing a notification of the kind it made on October 31, 1957? Is it not open to the Government to treat the confirmation as void and notify the persons affected and the public in general of the fact of its having done so by issuing a notification of the kind it made on October 31, 1957? In our opinion where a Government servant has no right to a post or to a particular status, though an authority under the Government acting beyond its competence had purported to give that person a status which it was not entitled to give he will not in law be deemed to have been validly appointed to the post or given the particular status. No doubt, the Government has used the expression "de-confirming" in its notification which may be susceptible of the meaning that it purported to undo an act which was therefore valid. As such, in my view, when the petitioner has been granted have and the question as to how to treat the period of leave is under consideration of the Government, I think the appointment of the second respondent herein cannot be said to be valid in law. In substance, he has been appointed to a post which is not vacant. It is true that there is no right for the probationer to become confirmed in the said post since he has not completed the period of probation of two years. But, at the same time, it has also to be seen that a probationer cannot be sent out abruptly by appointing some other person in his place when he has gone on leave with the hope that he can join the post after the study leave is over. 17. In view of my conclusions, I do not think it necessary to consider the arguments of Mr. K.T. Palpandian, on the question whether the petitioner is entitled to the study leave and whether it has been validly granted or not. 18. I am of the view that the present conclusion can be reached by applying the principles of promissory estoppel also. It is a principle of justice and equity. When a person by his words of conduct has led another to believe that he may safely act on faith on them and the other does act on them, he will not be allowed to go back on what he has said or done when it would be unjust for him to do so. When a person by his words of conduct has led another to believe that he may safely act on faith on them and the other does act on them, he will not be allowed to go back on what he has said or done when it would be unjust for him to do so. In this case, the petitioner has left with the sanction granted by the then Commissioner of the Panchayat Union which was also approved by the Additional Director of Rural Development and in my view the authorities should not be allowed to go back and contend at this stage that what the then Commissioner of the Panchayat Union did was wrong. I am of the view that disciplinary action is to be taken against the persons who are responsible and who landed the petitioner in such a situation: 19. I am of the view that it is very unfair to (sic) the petitioner out and for that matter, the second respondent either. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, though the prayer as asked for by the petitioner herein cannot be granted, it is open to this Court to mould the prayer to suit the situation considering the facts of the case. As such considering the fact that the second respondent was also appointed and regularised, though invalidly in my view, such appointment to the post of Medical Officer, Panchayat Union Dispensary, Idaikal, Kadayanallur Panchayat Union, being invalid, has to be set aside, and I direct the first respondent herein to take back the petitioner herein to the said post. However, in the interests of justice, I also direct the third respondent to absorb the second respondent in any one of the dispensaries of the Panchayat Union Councils. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.