Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the respondent Institution is a wholly funded institution, controlled by the Government of Tamilnadu. The petitioner had been selected and appointed in the post of non-teaching staff and designated as a Skilled Assistant (Electronics Department), by the second respondent, during the year 1996, based on her qualifications. While so, the petitioner had applied for medical leave for three days, from 22. 2001 to 3. 2001, due to her ill-health. The second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 23. 2001, without considering the request made by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the said impugned order, dated 23. 2001, issued by the second respondent, on various grounds, stating, interalia, that the said order had been passed, vindictively, in an arbitrary manner, without considering the request made by the petitioner to grant her medical leave, due to her ill-health. No specific reason has been given by the second respondent for rejecting the request of the petitioner for medical leave. The only reason stated by the second respondent, in his impugned order, dated 23. 2001, is that the request of the petitioner had been rejected due to administrative reasons. Since the petitioner is eligible, to avail the medical leave, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 23. 2001, is illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for this Court to interfere with the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 23. 2001. No specific reasons have been given by the second respondent, while rejecting the request made by the petitioner for medical leave. It has only been stated that the request of the petitioner had been rejected on administrative grounds. Such a statement made by the second respondent, in his impugned order, dated 23. 2001, cannot be sustained to be a valid and proper reason for denying the petitioner the medical leave, as requested by her. 5. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 23. Such a statement made by the second respondent, in his impugned order, dated 23. 2001, cannot be sustained to be a valid and proper reason for denying the petitioner the medical leave, as requested by her. 5. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 23. 2001, is set aside and the second respondent is directed to treat the leave availed by the petitioner, from 22. 2001 to 3. 2001, as medical leave, as prayed for by the petitioner. Thus, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.