Judgment :- 1. The Petitioner challenges the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission dated 14 September 2007 and 30 November 2007 whereby and whereunder the Application submitted by him for reappointment was agreed to subject to the condition that he has to forego his seniority and will be treated as junior most person in the service of the Commission Background facts: 2. The Petitioner was selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, (hereinafter referred to as TNPSC) for appointment to the post of Grade IV services. Accordingly, he was appointment as Junior Assistant cum Typist and was allotted to the office of the Commissioner of Agriculture, Chennai. He joined the said service on 10th August 2001. The Petitioner was also an Applicant for the Combined Subordinate Services Examination and he passed the said examination. Subsequently, the Second Respondent issued an order of appointment as per proceedings dated 27 August 2001, appointing him as Assistant in the Office of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Accordingly, the Petitioner was relieved from the post of Junior Assistant cum Typist by the Commissioner of Agriculture and he joined the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as Assistant on 14th September 2001. 3. Subsequently, the Petitioner found that the atmosphere in the office of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was not conducive for his continuance there are accordingly, he expressed his willingness to go back to his parent Department viz; the Agriculture Department. His request was considered favourably and he was permitted to go back to his earlier assignment in the Agriculture Department and accordingly he was relieved. The Petitioner rejoined the service of the Agriculture Department on 1st August 2002. 4. While the Petitioner was working in the Agriculture Department, he submitted series of applications before the Second Respondent on 30.6.2003; 28.02.2005 for reappointment in the office of the TNPSC. The Second Respondent on their pat obtained certain clarifications from the First Respondent with respect to interpretation of Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. The First Respondent clarified that rule 9 does not exclude applicability of absence from Service on one’s own request. Since there was constrained to file Writ Petition in W.P. No.6665/2007. The said Writ Petition was disposed of as per order dated 19 June 2007 directing the Second Respondent to consider the application on merits. The First Respondent clarified that rule 9 does not exclude applicability of absence from Service on one’s own request. Since there was constrained to file Writ Petition in W.P. No.6665/2007. The said Writ Petition was disposed of as per order dated 19 June 2007 directing the Second Respondent to consider the application on merits. Accordingly, the matter was considered by the Second Respondent and as per proceedings dated 14th September 2007, they have informed the Agriculture Department that the application of the Petitioner would be considered only in case he agrees for foregoing the seniority and be the junior most employee in the category of Assistant. Subsequently, as per communication dated 30.11.2007, the Second Respondent called upon the Petitioner to express his specific willingness as to whether he was willing to forego his seniority and agreeable to be the junior most person in the category of Assistant in Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Those two proceedings are impugned in this Writ Petition. 5. The Second Respondenet has filed counter wherein it was indicated that the case of the Petitioner was one of reappointment falling under the scope of Rule 9(a) of the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. The Petitioner on his own wish went back to his parent Department and once gain expressed his willingness to return to the office of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for reasons best known to him, Rule 9(a) of the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu and Subordinate Service under which the case has to be dealt with does not provide for retention of the original seniority in the case of reappointment. It was only in the said circumstances, the Petitioner was asked to forego his seniority in case he wants to get reappointment as Assistant. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in the proceedings impugned in this Writ petition. 6. The First Respondent in their Counter Affidavit supported the order passed by the Second Respondent. According to the First Respondent, the position was correctly spelt out in the counter filed by the Second RespondentSubmissions: 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contended that on two occasions, when the Second Respondent sought the opinion of the Government, the matter was clarified. According to the First Respondent, the position was correctly spelt out in the counter filed by the Second RespondentSubmissions: 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contended that on two occasions, when the Second Respondent sought the opinion of the Government, the matter was clarified. In the opinion given by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, on 16.10.2007, there was a clear indication that the Petitioner is entitled for re-appointment as per Rule 9 of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services and the said Rule does not exclude its applicability to absence from service at request. Therefore, based on this communication, the learned Senior Counsel contended that there was no justification for denying the past service. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission justified the impugned proceedings. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the Petitioner left the services of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission at his instance. After severing the relationship, it was not open to him to claim the benefits of his past service. The learned Standing Counsel further contended that the relief of reappointment itself was a concession given to the Petitioner and as such, it was not open to him to ignore the conditions subject to which the order of appointment was given Factual Analysis: 9. The Petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Assistant cum Typist and he was allotted to the Department of Agriculture. He joined the said service on 10th August 2001. Subsequently, he was appointed as Assistant in the office of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The Petitioner having found that he has got better chance in case he joined the service of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, accepted the said appointment. Accordingly, he was relived from the office of the Commissioner of Agriculture on 13 September 2001 and he joined the service of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 13 September 2001 and he joined the service of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 14 September 2001. 10. When the Petitioner found that the atmosphere was not conducive for his continuance in the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and that service conditions in the Agriculture Department were more beneficial, he abruptly left the service of the Second Respondent and joined the Department of Agriculture on 1st August 2002. 10. When the Petitioner found that the atmosphere was not conducive for his continuance in the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and that service conditions in the Agriculture Department were more beneficial, he abruptly left the service of the Second Respondent and joined the Department of Agriculture on 1st August 2002. It was a decision taken by the Petitioner after evaluating the chances of getting promotion in the respective services. The Petitioner was well aware that he has n lien in the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission subsequent to his joining in the service of the Agriculture Department. The decision taken by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to relieve the Petitioner from its service was final inasmuch as the Commission has not given an option to the Petitioner to come back once again. In fact, the Petitioner has not reserved his right to get re-employment in the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Therefore, the service in the Commission was broken for all purposes. It was a decision taken by the Petitioner for his service benefits knowing fully well that on account of his reappointment in the Agriculture Department, he has severed his relationship with the Second Respondent Commission. Therefore, with effect from 1st August 2002, the Petitioner was in the service of the Agriculture Department and he has no lien in the service of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Statutory Position: 11. The Petitioner has claimed the benefits of Rule of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. The said Rule reads thus: 9. Members absent from duty – The absence of a member of a service from duty in such service, whether on leave, or on foreign service or on deputation or for any other reason and whether his lien in a post borne on the cadre of such service is suspended or not, shall not, if he is otherwise fit, render him ineligible in his turn— (a) for re-appointment to a substantive or officiating vacancy in the class, category, grade or post in which he may be a probationer or an approved probationers; (b) for promotion from a lower to higher category in such service; (c) for appointment to any substantive or officiating vacancy in another service for which he may be an approved candidate, as the case may be, in the same manner as if he had not been absent. He shall be entitled to all the privilege in respect of appointment, seniority, promotion and appointment as full member which he would have enjoyed but for his absence subject to his completing satisfactorily the period of probation on his return; (d) for appointment to any substantive or officiating vacancy in another service, if according to the rules governing appointment to such other service-. (i) he is entitled to such appointment and (ii) the normal method of recruitment to such other service is by transfer from the service of which he is a member of any class or category thereof. 12. The Petitioner has no case that he was sent to the Agriculture Department on departure or his transfer of service was at the instance of the Government or the Tamil Nadu Service Commission. The act of leaving the service of TNPSC was a decision taken by the Petitioner without the intervention of the Government or the service commission. He was not sent to another service on account of administrative reasons. In fact, the Petitioner was weighing the pros and cons for his continuance in the office of TNPSC and having found that there were better chances in the Agriculture Department, he opted for the said service. It was only when he found that the service conditions were more favourable in TNPSC, he has opted once again to come back to the said service. Therefore, Rule 9 has no application in cases where an employee opted for another service on his own request. 13. It is true that in case the employee was transferred to the same post in the same cadre, or in another cadre at the instance of the employer, such transfers would not wipe out the services of the employee in the original cadre and in the event of coming back to his parental cadre, he would be given the benefits of his past service. However, in cases wherein the employee himself decides to leave the service for the purpose of joining another service without any kind of Government intervention, he cannot subsequently come by way of reappointment and claim the benefits of his past service. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Rules. 14. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Rules. 14. Though the Second Respondent was not legally bound to reappoint the Petitioner, they have expressed their consent to take him back to their service provided he was agreeable to forego his past service. There was nothing illegal in the conditions stipulated by the Second Respondent in the matter of reappointment. In case the Petitioner agrees for such a course, it would be open to him to take up re-appointment. However, he cannot be heard to say that he would joint the services of the Second Respondent only in case he gets the benefits of his past seniority. Incase the Petitioner is given the benefits of his past services, his seniority in the Second Respondent service had to be re-fixed and such a re-fixation would adversely affect the case of other employees. Therefore, the Second Respondent was absolutely correct in their stand that the Petitioner would be given reappointment only in case he agrees to forego his past service. Legal position: 15. The issue as to whether a Government servant who was transferred on his own request was entitled to count the earlier seniority in the new cadre or department came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in K.P. Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala, 2006 (5) SCC 386 . The Supreme Court considered the question in an extensive manner and answered thus: “11. In service jurisprudence, the general rule is that if a Government servant holding a particular post is transferred to the same post in the same cadre, the transfer will not wipe out his length of service in the post till the date of transfer and the period of service in the post before his transfer to be taken into consideration in computing the seniority in the transferred post. But where a Government servant is so transferred on his own request, the transferred employee will have to forego his seniority till the date of transfer, and will be placed at the bottom below the junior most employee in the category in the new cadre or department. This is because a Government servant getting transferred to another unit or department for his personal considerations, cannot be permitted to disturb the seniority of the employees in the department to which he is transferred, should be taken into account. This is because a Government servant getting transferred to another unit or department for his personal considerations, cannot be permitted to disturb the seniority of the employees in the department to which he is transferred, should be taken into account. This is also because a person appointed to a particular post in a cadre, should know the strength of the cadre and prospects of promotion on the basis of the seniority list prepared for the cadre and any addition from outside would disturb such prospects. The matter is, however, governed by the relevant service rules. 16. The concept of lien was explained by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. S.N. Tiwari, 2009 (4) SCC 700 . The observation reads thus: “Lien connotes the right of a Civil servant to hold the post substantively to which he is appointed. The lien of a Government employee over the previous post ends if he is appointed to another permanent post on permanent basis. In such a case the lien of the employee shifts to the new permanent post. It may not require a formal termination of lien over the previous permanent post.” 17. The factual matrix projected in this case clearly show that the Second Respondent has not played any role in the matter of transfer of service of the Petitioner to the Agriculture Department. The idea to leave the service of the Second Respondent originated only from the Petitioner. It was his desire to get better prospects in the service of the Agriculture Department which made him to take a decision to leave the service of the Second Respondent. It was only when he found that there were better chances of promotion and other service benefits in the service of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, he has opted to- come back. Therefore, all these acts were his unilateral acts without any kind of compulsion. In such circumstances, the Petitioner cannot be heard to say that he should be appointed with all the past benefits, including seniority. The case of the Petitioner was considered by the Second Respondent in accordance with the prevailing rules and the claim of past service was rightly rejected. Therefore, I do not find any error or illegality in the order, warranting interference by this Court by exercising power of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. The case of the Petitioner was considered by the Second Respondent in accordance with the prevailing rules and the claim of past service was rightly rejected. Therefore, I do not find any error or illegality in the order, warranting interference by this Court by exercising power of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.