Judgment :- Malimath, CJ. This appeal is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing O.P. No. 8452 of 1985. The appellant who is a female government servant delivered a child on 28th of May 1984, she being a teacher having had the benefit of the summer vacation, did not think of applying for maternity leave, from the date of delivery or from any reasonable period prior to the date of delivery. She made the application long after the delivery, that is, on the 25th of June 1984 seeking sanction of 90 days of maternity leave from 2-7-1984 to 29-9-1984 with permission to prefix and suffix. Leave prayed for was granted to her on the 19th of July 1984. She had also undergone sterilisation operation on 30-5-1984, a few days after her delivery. She claimed that she is entitled to 14 days leave on account of sterilisation operation, for the period from 8-10-1984 to 21-10-1984. The Assistant Educational Officer rejected her claim for leave on the ground of sterilisation operation and modified the maternity leave already granted and sanctioned the same for a period of 90 days from 28-5-1984 to 25-8-1984. Appeals against the said order were dismissed by the higher authorities as per Exts. P2 and P4. It is in this background that she had approached this court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge having dismissed the writ petition, she has come up with this appeal. 2. Sri. Sib Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that maternity leave for 90 days could be claimed by the appellant from the date of her choice as she has done in this case, that is, to commence from 2-7-1984 and to terminate on 29-9-1984. He contends that as long as this leave prayed for is in connection with or on the ground of maternity, the appellant is entitled to make the choice of the date and that therefore, the authorities were not justified in sanctioning the leave from the date of confinement i.e. 28-5-1984. 3. The grant of maternity leave is governed by Rule 100 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules, the relevant portion of which reads:- "A Competent Authority may grant to a female officer maternity leave on full pay for the period of 90 days from the date of its commencement". 3. The grant of maternity leave is governed by Rule 100 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules, the relevant portion of which reads:- "A Competent Authority may grant to a female officer maternity leave on full pay for the period of 90 days from the date of its commencement". In the context it is contended that the date of commencement is the date of the choice of the female government servant from which date she claims grant of maternity leave. If the appellant is right in this contention, she would be justified in contending that she is entitled to maternity leave from 2-7-1984 to 29-9-1984 as prayed for by her. Our attention was drawn to the rule that existed prior to its amendment by notification dated 5-2-1981. The relevant portion of the said rule was in the following terms:- "A competent authority may grant to a female officer maternity leave on full pay for a period which may extend up to the end of three months from the date of its commencement or to the end of eight weeks from the date of confinement, whichever be earlier". Only the latter portion of the old rule has been deleted from the word or, and the remaining portion of the old rule has been kept substantially intact. 4. It was submitted that a female government servant could have obtained maternity leave for a period of 90 days either from the date of commencement or till the end of eight weeks from the date of commencement whichever is earlier. This would suggest that the maternity leave could have been obtained under the old rule from a point anterior to the date of actual confinement. As the present rule is substantially in terms of the first part of the old rule it was con tended that even under the present role maternity leave can be obtained from a date anterior to the date of actual confinement or delivery. We are inclined to agree with this interpretation of the present rule. A female government servant can ask for leave for a period of 90 days with effect from a date anterior to the date of actual confinement. But, as the nature of the leave contemplated by rule 100 is maternity leave, it is obvious that maternity leave can be granted only in the context of confinement. A female government servant can ask for leave for a period of 90 days with effect from a date anterior to the date of actual confinement. But, as the nature of the leave contemplated by rule 100 is maternity leave, it is obvious that maternity leave can be granted only in the context of confinement. Rule 100 provides for grant of maternity leave for a female government servant, having regard to the difficulties that she may have in performing her duties for a reasonable period before confinement and after confinement. That being the position, no maternity leave can be granted which is a date far remote from the actual date of confinement. The date of confinement is the central point in maternity leave, which could extend for a period anterior to the date of confinement and posterior to the said date. As that is how we should construe rule 100, it is difficult to accede to the contention of counsel for the appellant that she could claim maternity leave with effect from a date far remote from the date of delivery. As already stated, the delivery took place on the 28th of May 1984 and she seeks maternity leave with effect from the 2nd July 1984. By this process she would not be asking for any leave actually on the date of confinement. The rule did not certainly conceive of such a situation. The authorities were therefore, justified in modifying the maternity leave and granting the same for a period of 90 days from the 28th of May 1984. The impugned order is therefore, did not suffer from any infirmity calling for interference. 5. The next contention of Sri. Siby Mathew, learned counsel for the appellant is that the authorities committed an error in rejecting the appellant's prayer for grant of leave on the ground of sterilisation operation for a period of 14 days with effect from 8-10-1984 to 21-10-1984. Special leave on the ground of sterilisation can be granted to a female government servant under Appendix VII, Section II, Rule 1 (vii)(b) which reads:- "A female Government Servant who undergoes Sterilisation operation will be granted Special Leave for a period not exceeding 14 days". Special leave on the ground of sterilisation can be granted to a female government servant under Appendix VII, Section II, Rule 1 (vii)(b) which reads:- "A female Government Servant who undergoes Sterilisation operation will be granted Special Leave for a period not exceeding 14 days". As what is contemplated thereunder is leave to a female government servant who undergoes sterilisation operation, it is obvious that leave is required to be granted having regard to the suffering and the period required by the person undergoing the operation for recuperation. Hence leave on the ground of undergoing sterilisation operation can be granted from the date of sterilisation or from a point of time very proximate to the sterilisation operation. The appellant having undergone sterilisation operation on the 30-5-1984 during the subsistence of her maternity leave, which expired only on the 25th August 1984, she would not be entitled to grant leave on the ground of sterilisation operation from a posterior date far away from the actual date of the operation of sterilisation. The authorities were therefore, right in rejecting her request in this behalf also. For the reasons stated above this appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs.