Judgment :- 1. With the consent of both parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal, as the matter lies in narrow compass. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner was temporarily appointed in the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) in 1991 as Steno-Typist. 4. The petitioner was selected as Steno-Typist by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and was allotted to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengelpet. She was relieved from DIET on 4.2.1997 with instructions that she shall join duty at Chengelpet on or before 14.2.1997, by the second respondent in the proceedings dated 13.1.1997. 5. The petitioner requested to post her at Coimbatore due to family problem and health condition. The request of the petitioner was accepted and the earlier order posting her at Chengelpet was cancelled. She received the fresh order of posting dated 10.2.1997 only on 12.2.1997. As per the order, she has to join duty at Coimbatore. She joined immediately on 13.2.1997, while the date fixed in the order dated 13.1.1997 was that she should join on or before 14.2.1997 at Chengelpet. 6. However, the period of 3 days is treated as break in service. The petitioner requested to regularise the period of break in service by condoning the same. 7. The second respondent sent a letter dated 13.11.2008 recommending to condone the unavoidable break of service of 3 days. But, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 6.5.2009 that there was no reason to condone the period of break in service. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to quash the aforesaid order dated 6.5.2009 of the first respondent. 8. The aforesaid facts make it clear that the petitioner was to join duty at Chengelpet only on 14.2.1997. In fact, she joined duty at Coimbatore on 13.2.1997 itself. Hence, it cannot be said that there was break in service. In any event, in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the second respondent also recommended to condone the unavoidable break of service of 3 days, the first respondent ought not to have passed the impugned order, rejecting the request of the petitioner. The first respondent failed to apply his mind to the aforesaid facts. 9. The petitioner was issued the order dated 10.2.1997 permitting her to join duty at Coimbatore. The first respondent failed to apply his mind to the aforesaid facts. 9. The petitioner was issued the order dated 10.2.1997 permitting her to join duty at Coimbatore. The said order dated 10.2.1997 was sent by post and was received by the petitioner on 12.2.1997 and she immediately joined on 13.2.1997. If these facts are taken into account, the first respondent ought not to have passed the impugned order. 10. Hence, I have no hesitation to quash the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and a direction is issued to the first respondent to pass fresh order condoning the delay of 3 days of break in service, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.