Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : No representation on behalf of the petitioner. By proceedings dated 17-5-1993, the petitioner was discharged from service by the respondent by exercising the power under Section 26(a)(ii) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Services, on the ground that he had not passed the District Office Manual Test and had not undergone the Foundational Training conducted by the Civil Service Training Institute at Bhavanisagar for the declaration of completion of probation in the post of Junior Assistant. Even though the petitioner entered into service under the respondent as Junior Assistant on 19-9-1983, discharged from service on 18-12-1984 and was re-appointed as Junior Assistant from 21-3-1989. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 17-5-1993, the petitioner has sought for issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the proceedings No. 11259/DE4/90 dated 17-5-1993 from the respondent and to quash the same. The proceedings of the respondent dated 17-5-1993 reads as follows : "TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Proceedings No. 11259/DE4/90 dated 17-5-1993 Sub : Establishment - Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission - Thiru N. Mohanraj, Junior Assistant - Failure to pass District Office Manual Test and complete the Training - Termination of Probation Orders - Issued. Ref. 1. G.O. Ms. No. 996, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Placements), dated 22-9-1984. 2. G.O. Ms. No. 548, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel, J.), dated 19-6-1987. 3. This office Proceedings No. 11373/DE3/86, dated 10-3-1989. 4. This Office Proceedings No. 11373/DE3/86 dated 29-12-1989. 5. This Office Memorandum No. 11259/DE4/90 dated 4-10-1991. 6. Letter dated 24-10-1991 from the Individual.Thiru N. Mohanraj was appointed as Junior Assistant, temporarily in the Commission's office with effect from 19-9-1983. He was discharged from service with effect from 18-12-1984. Later, with reference to the orders issued in the G.O. first cited, he was reappointed as Junior Assistant with effect from 21-3-1989 and his temporary services in that post were regularised with retrospective effect from 25-6-1984. The Government, in the year 1987, in the G.O. second cited have issued special Rules prescribing the service conditions for those Junior Assistants/Typists whose temporary services were regularised with retrospective effect with reference to the G.O. first cited. The Government, in the year 1987, in the G.O. second cited have issued special Rules prescribing the service conditions for those Junior Assistants/Typists whose temporary services were regularised with retrospective effect with reference to the G.O. first cited. In the said special Rules, it has been laid down that wherever test or training is prescribed in the Special Rules concerned as a qualification for completion of probation in a service, the candidate appointed should pass such test or undergo such training before the expiry of two years period from the date of issue of the said Special Rules viz., 19-6-1987, failing which their increments should be stopped for two years without cumulative effect and that if the candidates fail to pass the test or undergo the training even by the end of the fourth year, then, their services should be terminated following the normal procedure. 2. So far as the Commission's Office is concerned, a person appointed to the post of Junior Assistant, should pass (i) District Office Manual Text and (ii) he should undergo the Foundational Training conducted by the Civil Service Training Institute at Bhavanisagar for the declaration of completion of probation in the post of Junior Assistant. Hence, Thiru N. Mohanraj ought to have passed the District Office Manual Test and completed the said training before 18-6-1991 with reference to the Special Rules issued in G.O. second cited. 3. The individual was given all the reasonable opportunities to pass the District Office Manual Test and to complete the training at Bhavanisagar but he failed to avail them under some pretext or other. He has, therefore, failed to satisfy the conditions stipulated in the Special Rules issued in the G.O. second cited for the declaration of completion of probation for the post of Junior Assistant. He was, therefore, directed to show cause in this office proceedings fifth cited, as to why his probation should not be terminated for failure to pass the District Office Manual Test and complete the training. In reply to the show cause notice, the individual, in his letter sixth cited, has requested further time to pass the District Office Manual Test and complete the training. Though his request was unreasonable, he was given further opportunity to pass the District Office Manual Test and complete the training. In reply to the show cause notice, the individual, in his letter sixth cited, has requested further time to pass the District Office Manual Test and complete the training. Though his request was unreasonable, he was given further opportunity to pass the District Office Manual Test and complete the training. But so far he has not passed the District Office Manual Test and not completed the said training also. 4. For his failure to pass the District Office Manual Test and complete the foundational training conducted by the Civil Service Training Institute, Bhavanisagar for the declaration of completion of probation in the post of Junior Assistant, as prescribed in the Special Rules issued in the G.O. second cited and in accordance with Rule 26(a)(ii) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, his probation is terminated and he is discharged from service with effect from the date of this order. SAMEER VYAS, SECRETARY. /BY Order/ Sd/- x x x x UNDER SECRETARY" According to the petitioner, he was hospitalised due to mental illness for sometime, and therefore, he could not successfully pass the departmental test even though he appeared for the same in time. The petitioner further contends that the impugned order dated 17-5-1993 discharging him from service is not in accordance with law and the same is violative of the principles of natural justice.Per contra, Mr. G. Sankaran, learned Government Advocate, contends that the petitioner ought to have passed the District Office Manual Test and should have undergone the Foundational Training conducted by the Civil Services Training Institute at Bhavanisagar before 18-6-1991, namely, within four years from the date of issue of the Special Rules, declaring completion of probation. It is further contended that the petitioner was highly irregular in his duty as he was on leave on 547 days out of 1125 days during the period 21-3-1989 to 2-4-1992. I have given a careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. The impugned order dated 17-5-1993 does not charge any irregularity such as absence from duty when he was in service. I have given a careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. The impugned order dated 17-5-1993 does not charge any irregularity such as absence from duty when he was in service. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner was irregular in duty as he was absenting himself for duty for 547 days out of 1125 days from 21-3-1989 to 2-4-1992 does not deserve any consideration, particularly when he has already been awarded a punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect for the said irrgularity. On the other hand, the absence of the petitioner during the said period supports the case of the petitioner that he was suffering from mental illness during that period, and therefore, he could not successfully pass the departmental test. The Tamil Nadu Special Absorption Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "Special Absorption Rules") made by the Government of Tamil Nadu in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India vide G.O. Ms. No. 548. Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel.), dated 19-6-1987, no doubt, prevails over the General Rules, Special Rules, Fundamental Rules or the Tamil Nadu Leave Rules, 1973, in view of Rule 3 of the Special Absorption Rules. Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Special Absorption Rules, prescribe the age qualification, educational qualification and technical qualification of the candidates who are defined under Rule 2(a) of the Special Absorption Rules. Proviso to Rule 6 of the Special Absorption Rules provide that the candidate appointed through Special absorption in 1984 and who do not possess the technical qualification prescribed in the Special Rules concerned, shall acquire the technical qualification prescribed in the Special Rules concerned within a period of two years, failing which, their increment shall be stopped without cumulative effect till they acquire such technical qualification. If they fail to acquire such technical qualification even by the end of the fourth year from the date of issue of these rules, their services shall be terminated following the normal procedures. Rule 9 of the Special Absorption Rules requires the candidates defined under Rule 2(a) of the Special Absorption Rules, to complete the test and training within the time stipulated as follows : "Rule 9 : Test and Training. Rule 9 of the Special Absorption Rules requires the candidates defined under Rule 2(a) of the Special Absorption Rules, to complete the test and training within the time stipulated as follows : "Rule 9 : Test and Training. - Whether test or training is prescribed in the special rules concerned, as a qualification for declaration of completion of probation in a service, the candidates appointed through special absorption in 1984 shall pass such test or undergo such training before the expiry of two years period from the date of issue of these rules, failing which their increments shall be stopped for two years without cumulative effect. If they fail to pass such test or undergo such training even by the end of the fourth year their services shall be terminated following the normal procedure." In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner was originally appointed as Junior Assistant temporarily from 19-9-1983 to 18-12-1984 and his service was regularised in the said post with retrospective effect from 25-6-1984. Even as per the impugned proceedings dated 17-5-1993, the petitioner is not lacking any age, educational or technical qualification required for the post of Junior Assistant, to which he was re-appointed on 21-3-1989. But according to the respondent, the Special Absorption Rules, 1987 came into force from 19-6-1987, and therefore, the petitioner should have compelled the department tests and training within two years from the date of issue of the Special Absorption Rules, failing which, he should suffer a stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect as per Rule 9 of the Special Absorption Rules, referred to above, or at least should have passed the departmental tests and undergone such training by the end of the fourth year of service, failing which, he should be terminated. following the normal procedure. In my considered opinion, the two years cannot be computed from the date of issuance of the Rules, as the petitioner himself was not in service on the date of issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 548, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel, J.), dated 19-6-1987. On the other hand, admittedly, the petitioner was re-appointed only on 21-3-1989. following the normal procedure. In my considered opinion, the two years cannot be computed from the date of issuance of the Rules, as the petitioner himself was not in service on the date of issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 548, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel, J.), dated 19-6-1987. On the other hand, admittedly, the petitioner was re-appointed only on 21-3-1989. Therefore, assuming that he is expected to pass the test to undergo such training by the end of the fourth year of his service, i.e., on or before 20-3-1993, only thereafter, the respondent could take appropriate action to terminate the service of the petitioner, following the normal procedure, as contemplated under Rule 9 of the Special Absorption Rules. But, quite strangely, I find from the very impugned proceedings that the respondent has directed the petitioner to show cause why he should not be terminated for his failure to pass the District Office Manual Test and complete the training by official memorandum dated 4-10-1991 under 5th reference to the proceedings dated 17-5-1993, on which date, the respondent had no authority to issue such show cause notice, because, even as per Rule 9 of the Special Absorption Rules, the petitioner is expected to pass the departmental test and to undergo such training only by the end of the fourth year of service, which falls only on 20-3-1993. Therefore, the very show cause notice issued under the official memorandum, dated 4-10-1991 vide 5th reference to the impugned proceedings dated 17-5-1993 is totally without jurisdiction and clearly spells out the mala fide on the part of the respondent in discharging the petitioner from service, contrary to Rule 9 of the Special Absorption Rules.That apart, a harmonious reading of Rules 3 and 9 of the Special Absorption Rules would show that even though by operation of Rule 3 of the Special Absorption Rules, 1987, the Special Absorption Rules would prevail over the general rules, Rule 9 of the Special Absorption Rules itself again contemplates that the service of such candidates, who had not passed and had not undergone such training shall be terminated only following the normal procedure. Therefore, in view of Rule 9 of the Special Absorption Rules, again, the respondent is obliged to following Rule 26 of the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, which read as follows : Rule 26 : "Termination or extension of probation. Therefore, in view of Rule 9 of the Special Absorption Rules, again, the respondent is obliged to following Rule 26 of the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, which read as follows : Rule 26 : "Termination or extension of probation. - (a) Where the special rules of any service prescribe a period of probation for appointment as a full member of the service, or where such period of probation has been extended under General Rule 28, the appointing authority may, at any time before the expiry of the prescribed period of probation or the extended period of probation, as the case may be - (i) ................. (ii) at its discretion, by order, either extend the period of probation of the probationer in case the probation has not been extended under General Rules 28 or terminate his probation and discharge him from service after giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed termination of probation : Provided that where a probationer has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the imposition on him of any of the penalties specified in clauses (iv), (vi) (vii) and (viii) of Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and at the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, a tentative conclusion is arrived as to terminate his probation, a further opportunity of showing cause specifically against termination of his probation need not be given to him.Explanation :- An opportunity to show cause may be given after the appointing authority arrives at a provisional conclusion on the suitability or otherwise of the probationer for full membership of the service, either by such authority himself or by a subordinate authority who is superior in rank to the probationer. (b)(i) If within the period of probation a probationer fails to acquire the special qualifications or to pass the special tests, if any, prescribed in the special rules or to acquire such other qualifications as may be declared by the State Government or by the appointing authority with the approval of the State Government to be equivalent to the said special qualifications or special tests, the appointing authority shall, by order, discharge him from the service unless the period of probation is extended under Rule 28. (ii) If within the period of probation prescribed in the special rules for the service or within the extended period of probation, as the case may be, a probationer has appeared for any such tests or for any examinations in connection with the acquisition of any such qualifications and the results of the tests or examinations for which he has so appeared are not known before the expiry of such period, he shall continue to be on probation until the publication of the results of the tests or examinations for which he has appeared or the first of them in which he fails to pass, as the case may be. In case the probationer fails to pass any of the tests or examinations for which he has so appeared, the appointing authority shall, by order, discharge him from the service. Explanation - The maximum period up to which the probation of a Government servant shall be extended so as to enable him to acquire the test qualification, be fixed as five years. If he does not acquire the test qualification even within the maximum period of five years, he shall be reverted and the qualified and eligible juniors shall be considered for promotion. If such a person is appointed by direct recruitment and has not acquired the test qualification even within the maximum period of five years, his probation shall be terminated." A reading of Rule 26(a)(ii) of the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services makes it clear that the respondent is given a discretion to pass appropriate order either to extend the period of probation of the probationer or to terminate his probation and discharge the probationer from service after giving a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed termination of probation. But, in the instant case, even as per Rule 9 of the Special Absorption Rules, the respondent could issue a show cause notice for terminating the services of the petitioner only if the petitioner fails to pass the test or to undergo such training by the end of the fourth year of service, which falls only on 20-3-1993. Whereas, the respondent issued the show cause notice proposing to terminate the services of the petitioner and to discharge him from service as early as 4-10-1991, even before the expiry of four years of service of the petitioner. Whereas, the respondent issued the show cause notice proposing to terminate the services of the petitioner and to discharge him from service as early as 4-10-1991, even before the expiry of four years of service of the petitioner. Therefore, from any angle, the very show cause notice dated 4-10-1991 is illegal and without jurisdiction and hence the consequential impugned proceedings dated 17-5-1993 terminating the probation of the petitioner and thereby discharging him from service is also illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary and contrary to Rule 9 of the Special Absorption Rules read with Rule 26(a)(ii) of General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services. Hence, the impugned order dated 17-5-1993 stands quashed and the respondent is directed to pass appropriate order to reinstate the petitioner with all attendant benefits within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.