JUDGMENT Sreedharan, J. 1. Petitioner and second respondent were working as Senior Hydrogeologist in 1985. Second respondent applied for Half Pay Leave from 6th April 1985 to 30th April 1985. The Director of Ground Water Department granted that leave. He put in an application for leave without allowance for two years for seeking employment abroad. Without getting that leave sanctioned he left the service. He is the holder of passport No. P-862574 issued by the Regional Passport Office, Cochin. The passport shows that he left Bombay for the Sultanate of Oman on 6th May 1985. The passport which is in evidence shows that a visa was granted by the Sultanate of Oman which has been stamped on page 9 of the passport. That entry shows that Zubair Enterprises, 4127 R.U.W.I. is the employer at whose instance, visa was issued. He returned to India on 2nd January 1986. This is evidenced by the seal affixed by the Air Port immigration Office, Bombay on page 7 of the passport. Petitioner's case is that second respondent left India on 6th May 1985 for taking up employment under Zubair Enterprises and returned to India on 2nd January 1986. 2. By G.O. (Ms) No. 53/85/W and P, dated 2nd August 1985 a new post of Superintending Hydrogeologist was created in the Ground Water Department. Second respondent having left India the next seniormost Senior Hydrogeologist was to be promoted to the post under R.31(a)(1) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. Petitioner being the immediate Junior to the second respondent was thus posted as Superintending Hydrogeologist by G.O. (Rt) No. 518/85/R.P.N., dated 11th September 1985. While the petitioner was thus holding the post, second respondent after return from abroad put in an application oh 13th January 1986 praying for cancellation of the leave applied for, for seeking employment abroad and for permission to join duty with effect from 14th January 1986. 3. For the unauthorised absence disciplinary action was initiated against the second respondent. In reply to the said proceedings he filed an explanation stating that he had gone abroad for seeking employment and not for taking up employment. So he wanted the period of absence to be regularised by granting him eligible leave. In pursuance to that request of the second respondent, Government issued Ext. P-1 order dated 23rd September 1987. Government taking a lenient view allowed him to join duty as Senior Hydrogeologist. So he wanted the period of absence to be regularised by granting him eligible leave. In pursuance to that request of the second respondent, Government issued Ext. P-1 order dated 23rd September 1987. Government taking a lenient view allowed him to join duty as Senior Hydrogeologist. They cancelled the Half Pay Leave for the period from 6th April 1985 to 30th April 1985 and directed him to apply for leave without allowance for the entire period. Thereafter it appears that the second respondent filed representation before Government contending that the leave once sanctioned cannot be cancelled in view of the note to R.65 of Part I K. S.R. That Note states that the nature of the leave due and applied for by an officer cannot be altered at the option of the sanctioning authority. While it is open to the sanctioning authority to refuse or revoke the leave due and applied for, it is not open to him to alter the nature of such leave. Since the Director has sanctioned Half Pay Leave for the period from 6th April 1985 to 30th April 1985, the same cannot be cancelled and converted as leave without allowance. Government by this time dropped the disciplinary action initiated against him as well. Government further wanted to regularise the second respondent's absence from 1st May 1985 to 11th March 1986 by granting other eligible leave other than leave without allowance for taking up employment elsewhere. Accordingly by Ext. P-3 order dated 1st June 1988 he was granted Earned Leave for 63 days from 1st May 1985 to 2nd July 1985, Half Pay Leave for 78 days from 3rd July 1985 to 18th September 1985 and leave without allowance from 19th September 1985 to 11th March 1986. Consequent on this regularisation of the service of the second respondent he was provisionally promoted as Superintending Hydro-geologist and reverted the petitioner to the cadre of Senior Hydrogeologist - Petitioner challenges Ext. P-3 order as one passed against public interest and malafide to favour the second respondent. 4. Learned counsel representing the second respondent raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of this Original Petition. It is argued that the regularisation of the period of absence of the second respondent is a matter concerning him and the Government. P-3 order as one passed against public interest and malafide to favour the second respondent. 4. Learned counsel representing the second respondent raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of this Original Petition. It is argued that the regularisation of the period of absence of the second respondent is a matter concerning him and the Government. Petitioner has no voice in that issue, when the Government after applying its mind to the various provisions contained in the K. S.R. has granted the leave, petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the same under Art.226 of the Constitution. On account of the regularisation of the period of absence he being the senior most Senior Hydrogeologist is entitled to get the post of Superintending Hydrogeologist as per R.31(a)(1) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. The mere fact that petitioner got a provisional posting as Superintending Hydrogeologist in the absence of the second respondent is no basis for challenging the regularisation of second respondent's period of absence. 5. The fact that second respondent was outside India from 6th May 1985 to 2nd January 1986 is established beyond any doubt by his passport. It is also not open to challenge that he went to Sultanate of Oman on a visa granted on the basis that he is employed by Zubair Enterprises, R.U.W.I. This fact is also borne out from the passport. Petitioner would contend that second respondent has gone abroad for taking up employment. Second respondent on the other hand took up the stand that he has not gone abroad for taking up employment but only for seeking employment. A person who goes out seeking employment cannot have a visa endorsed showing the employer as Zubair Enterprises. So the passport clearly shows that he has gone abroad for taking up employment. Such a person who has gone abroad for taking up employment and has in fact taken up employment, which fact is admitted by him in the counter affidavit, is not entitled so have the period of absence regularised as has been done in Ext. P-3 order. As a consequence of that regularisation of the period of his absence petitioner had to step down from the post of Superintending Hydrogeologist. As a consequence of Ext. P-3 the seniority of the second respondent over the petitioner in the lower cadre was maintained and consequently he got promotion to the cadre of Superintending Hydrogeologist. P-3 order. As a consequence of that regularisation of the period of his absence petitioner had to step down from the post of Superintending Hydrogeologist. As a consequence of Ext. P-3 the seniority of the second respondent over the petitioner in the lower cadre was maintained and consequently he got promotion to the cadre of Superintending Hydrogeologist. But for the regularisation of the period of absence of the second respondent by Ext. P-3 order petitioner would have continued in the post of Superintending Hydrogeologist. Viewed in this manner petitioner is a person adversely affected by Ext. P-3 order. Consequently the Original Petition filed by him is maintainable. At this juncture I consider it worthwhile to refer to the decision in Lakhi Ram v. State of Haryana ( AIR 1981 SC 1655 ). The facts of the case are as follows: A junior happened to get promotion on account of the adverse entries made in the confidential records of the senior. When the adverse entries were sought to be expunged, the junior opposed. He approached the High Court. The High Court took the view that he has no competence to complain against the expungement of adverse remarks in another officer's confidential report. Disagreeing with it their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: ''The effect of expungement of adverse remarks in the confidential report of respondent No. 6 is to prejudice the chances of promotion of the appellant and if the appellant is able to show that the expungement of the remarks was illegal and invalid, the adverse remarks would continue to remain in the confidential report of respondent No. 6 and that would improve the chances of promotion of the appellant vis-a-vis respondent No. 6. The appellant was, therefore, clearly entitled to show that the Government acted beyond the scope of its power in expunging the adverse remarks in the confidential report of respondent No. 6 and that the expungement of the adverse remarks should be cancelled." In the instant case if the second respondent's absence from service has not been regularised petitioner would not have faced reversion from the cadre of Superintending Hydro-geologist. So he is a person interested in seeing that Ext. P-3 order is set aside. Therefore I overrule the objection raised by the second respondent regarding the maintainability of the Original Petition. 6. So he is a person interested in seeing that Ext. P-3 order is set aside. Therefore I overrule the objection raised by the second respondent regarding the maintainability of the Original Petition. 6. From the passport, as stated earlier, it is established that the second respondent left India on the visa given by the Sultanate of Oman as an employee of Zubair Enterprises. It is admitted by him in the counter affidavit that he had been engaged by Zubair Enterprises also during his stay in Oman. When he left India on the visa stamped in the passport, he could have taken up employment only under Zubair Enterprises. It shows that he left India for taking up employment. It was not for seeking employment as has been put by him in his application and in his representation to Government. He put in application for leave without allowance for a period of two years from 1st May 1985. He did not wait for getting that leave sanctioned. Before any order was passed by the Government on that application he left India on 6th May 1985. As per Appendix XII A of K.S.R. an officer taking up employment abroad on his own accord will have to go on leave without allowance to avail himself of the facility. So the second respondent being one who has taken up employment abroad will have to avail the leave without allowance as contemplated by Appendix XII A. Government have no power to relax the above provision contained in that Rule. Presumably to defeat the Government he availed of Half Pay Leave for the period between 6th May 1985 and 30th April 1985. Since that leave has been sanctioned by the Director he comes forward with a claim based on the Note to R.65 contending that the sanctioning authority has no power to change the nature of leave. No provision of the K.S.R. was brought to my notice by the learned counsel representing the second respondent enabling him to apply for leave for seeking employment abroad. Second respondent could have applied for leave for taking up employment under Appendix XII A or leave without allowance contemplated by rule .88 of Part. I K.S.R. Second respondent has no case that the leave applied for by him was one falling under R.88. Second respondent could have applied for leave for taking up employment under Appendix XII A or leave without allowance contemplated by rule .88 of Part. I K.S.R. Second respondent has no case that the leave applied for by him was one falling under R.88. So the leave that can be granted to the second respondent, if at all, can only be the one coming within the purview of Appendix XII A. Since he has availed of Half pay Leave for the period between 6th April 1985 and 30th April 1985, he has raised a contention that the leave under Appendix XII-A cannot be granted in continuation of that leave. As stated earlier, second respondent has schemed his programme in such a way that the Government should find it difficult to deal with his absence from 1st May 1985 as an ordinary case. It appears that the Government is not that much helpless. R.7 of Part I K.S.R. can be invoked by the Government and relax the rigour of the Note to R.65. If that power is exercised, the nature of the leave applied for and sanctioned for the period from 6th April 1985 to 30th April 1985 can be altered. 7. As stated earlier, petitioner was employed abroad under Zubair Enterprises. He was earning salary from that firm. The period during which he worked under that firm has now been regularised by granting Earned Leave and Half Pay Leave. It means that the second respondent is now getting the full salary for 63 days and half pay for 78 days. This grant of favour to the second respondent is like the disbursement of largess which was condemned by the Supreme Court in M/s Kasturi Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1980 SC 1992 . In that case their Lordships observed: "The Government is not free, like an ordinary individual, in selecting the recipients for its largess and it cannot choose to deal with any person it pleases in its absolute and unfettered discretion." In view of what has been stated above, I quash Ext. P-3 order regularising the absence of the second respondent for the period from 1st May 1985 to 11th March 1986. Government are directed to reconsider the entire issue and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made earlier in this judgment. P-3 order regularising the absence of the second respondent for the period from 1st May 1985 to 11th March 1986. Government are directed to reconsider the entire issue and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made earlier in this judgment. The Original Petition is disposed of in the above terms.