Judgment : 1. By consent of counsel for both sides, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. The Petitioners in all these writ petitions seek for issuance of a Mandamus directing the respondents to consider them for selection to the post graduate MD/MS/M.Ch (Neuro-Surgery) courses for the academic year 2014-2015 under 'Service category' under clause 10 (a) and (b) by reckoning 2 year period upto the date of commencement of courses as permitted in the previous years. 3. The petitioners in these cases have completed their M.B.B.S. Degree during 2002 and have registered their name with the Professional Executive Employment Exchange in the State. While so, during January 2012, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.2, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 02.01.2012 resorting to fill up 835 vacancies of Assistant Surgeon. The petitioners have also applied for the post of Assistant Surgeon and they were called for a counseling and eventually got selected to the post of Assistant Surgeon. 4. As far as the order of appointments dated 27.03.2012 are concerned, it was sent to the petitioner in WP No. 6685 of 2014 on 27.03.2012 in which he was given 15 days time to join the post, but the order was received only on 31.03.2012. Since the next day viz., 01.04.2012 falls on Sunday, the petitioner in WP No. 6685 of 2012 reported for joining duty before the Deputy Director of Health Services, Krishnagiri. However, he was informed that the post was already filled and therefore he rushed back to Chennai on the same day i.e., 02.04.2012 itself and obtained a revised order of posting on 03.04.2012. Thereafter, on 04.04.2012, the Petitioner in WP No. 6685 of 2012 joined duty at Krishnagiri. 5. As far as the petitioner in WP No. 6686 of 2012 is concerned, she attended the counseling on 26.03.2012 and on the next day i.e., 27.03.2012, she was declared as selected to the post of Assistant Surgeon. The order of appointment was sent to her by post and she received it on 31.03.2012 in which it was indicated that she should join the post within 15 days. On 02.04.2012, she reported for before the Deputy Director of Health Services, Cheyyur, obtained medical fitness and complied with other formalities. Thereafter, on 04.04.2012, she joined duty at Mamandur Primary Health Centre in Cheyyur Taluk. 6. On 02.04.2012, she reported for before the Deputy Director of Health Services, Cheyyur, obtained medical fitness and complied with other formalities. Thereafter, on 04.04.2012, she joined duty at Mamandur Primary Health Centre in Cheyyur Taluk. 6. Similarly, the petitioner in WP No. 6687 of 2014, who attended the counseling on 27.03.2012, was issued with an order of appointment, she received it on 31.03.2012 in which it was indicated that she should join the post within 15 days. The petitioner joined the post of Assistant Surgeon on the next day i.e., 02.04.2014 at MB Nallur in Thiruvannamalai District. 7. When the petitioners are working as Assistant Surgeon, the third respondent invited for applications for admission to the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses for the year 2014-2015. The petitioners also applied for admission to the course. 8. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are already working as Assistant Surgeons and they must be treated as 'service candidates' so that they will be given priority in the matter of admission to the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Course. According to the petitioners, in the prospectus issued by the third respondent, in clause No.10 (b), it was stated that the candidates who have put in less than two years of continuous regular service as on 31.03.2014 are not eligible to apply. According to the petitioners, they have joined the post of Assistant Surgeon on 04.04.2012, 04.04.2012 and 02.04.2012 respectively and they are completing the two years period 4 days after the cut off date of 31.03.2014 prescribed in clause 10 (2) of the prospectus. Admittedly, as on 31.03.2014, the petitioners have completed 2 or 4 days short of two years experience stipulated in Clause 10 (2) of the prospectus if their service is reckoned from the date of joining duty as Assistant Surgeon. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that by citing clause 10 (2) of the prospectus, the petitioners are likely to be made ineligible to apply for the course. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the date of joining the post of Assistant Surgeon need not be taken into account for the purpose of reckoning the two years period of service. On the other hand, the date on which the petitioners have been selected for the post of Assistant Surgeon alone has to be considered. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the date of joining the post of Assistant Surgeon need not be taken into account for the purpose of reckoning the two years period of service. On the other hand, the date on which the petitioners have been selected for the post of Assistant Surgeon alone has to be considered. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on decision of Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Chairman, Puri Gramya Bank and another vs. Ananda Chandra Das and others) (1994) 6 SCC 301 wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court, while dealing with the question of ranking among the direct recruits, held that the ranking secured at the time of selection can be reckoned for the purpose of seniority. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader, though not filed a counter affidavit, would only contend that clause 10 (b) of the prospectus clearly states that those who did not complete two years service are not eligible to apply. Further, the petitioners have been appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) of the General Rules and therefore also, their past service cannot be reckoned so as to enable them to get admission to the post graduate Course. It is further contended that immediately on their selection, the appointment orders were sent to them and no delay can be attributed on the part of the respondents in sending the order of appointment. Further, the petitioners joined duty only on 04.04.2012, 04.04.2012 and 02.04.2012 respectively and therefore from the date of their joining duty, till 31.03.2014, they have not completed the two year period stipulated in Clause 10 of the prospectus. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 11. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Government Pleaders appearing for the respondents. 12. The petitioners, who have completed their M.B.B.S. course were selected to the post of Assistant Surgeon on 27.03.2012 and the appointment orders were sent to them on 31.03.2012 in which 15 days time was given for joining the duty. As the next day viz., 01.04.2012 falls on Sunday, the petitioners could not join the post of Assistant Surgeon. As far as the petitioner in WP No. 6685 of 2014 is concerned, he reported for joining duty, but he was informed that somebody else was allotted in his place. As the next day viz., 01.04.2012 falls on Sunday, the petitioners could not join the post of Assistant Surgeon. As far as the petitioner in WP No. 6685 of 2014 is concerned, he reported for joining duty, but he was informed that somebody else was allotted in his place. Therefore, he immediately approached the concerned authority at Chennai, obtained revised posting order on 03.04.2012 and thereafter he joined on 04.04.2012. Similarly, the other petitioner in WP No. 6886 of 2014, who reported for joining duty on 02.04.2012, was not allowed to join duty for want of medical fitness certificate and for compliance of other formalities. Thereafter, on 04.04.2012, the petitioner in WP No. 6886 of 2014 joined duty. However, the petitioner in WP No. 6687 of 2014 joined the post of Assistant Surgeon immediately on 02.04.2012. Therefore, it could be seen that even though the petitioners were selected on 27.03.2012 itself, for various other reasons, they have joined the post of Assistant Surgeon only on 04.04.2012, 04.04.2012 and 02.04.2012 respectively. The petitioners cannot also be attributed with any fault for not joining duty immediately on receipt of the appointment order. For availing the benefit of clause 10 (2) of the prospectus, the petitioners are running short of 2 or 4 days of experience. When the petitioners have joined duty as Assistant Surgeon immediately on receipt of the order of appointment, they cannot be denied the benefit of reckoning their services from the date on which they were selected to the post of Assistant Surgeon on 27.03.2012 and if it is taken in to account, they could very well be considered for the purpose of extending the benefit of clause 10 (2) of the prospectus. 13. In identical circumstances, this Court passed an order dated 07.01.2008 made in WP No. 35510 of 2007 wherein in para Nos. 5, 6 and 7, it was held as follows:- "5. It was based on the proposal for condonation the Government has also passed an order in G.O. (D) No. 138, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 15.02.2006 clearly stating that the petitioners, who are students of the 4th respondent medical college are entitled to appear for the Post Graduate Entrance Examination for the year 20062007 session thereby condoning the delay caused by the fourth respondent. 6. 6. As per clause 44 (a) of the Post Graduate Prospectus 2006-2007, one mark has to be granted to each of the candidates who have completed one year after CRAI. By virtue of the said G.O. as a natural consequences, the petitioners are entitled to get one mark as per the said clause in the prospectus. It is also seen that as per the prospectus, one mark for each completed year after the completion of CRRI shall be awarded as marks for experience for both service/non-service candidates to a maximum of ten marks. Inspite of the condonation made by the Government by virtue of passing the said G.O. one mark which the petitioners are entitled has not been given to them on the basis that the students of the 4th respondent college completed their CRRI Course only on 03.04.2006 instead of 31.03.2006. Due to this the petitioners getting admission in the post graduate course was affected and in these circumstance the present writ petition is filed. 7. Under similar circumstance, as I have stated above, when the same issue was raised, this Court by order dated 30.03.2007 in W.P. No. 10922 of 2007 has allowed the writ petition with a direction to the third respondent to award one additional mark as per Clause 44 (a) of the Post Graduate Prospectus 2007-2008 for Entrance examination. It is not in dispute that the facts and circumstances of the petitioners case is also same as that of the petitioners in the earlier case as I have stated above. In view of the same, this Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the third respondent to award one additional mark as per Clause 44 (a) of the Post Graduate Prospectus 2007-2008, Entrance Examination, to the petitioners who have sponsored for Post Graduate Medical Courses Entrance Examination for MD, MS, P.G. Diploma Course and 5 year M.Ch. Course for the year 2007-2008 and for the subsequent year 2008-09 as per the Prospectus and pass appropriate orders. Consequently, the connected M.P.s are closed. No costs. 14. Course for the year 2007-2008 and for the subsequent year 2008-09 as per the Prospectus and pass appropriate orders. Consequently, the connected M.P.s are closed. No costs. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the decision of this Court reported in (S. Mary Sherly vs. Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai and others) (2013) 3 MLJ 56 wherein this Court, while dealing with the question of entitlement of an appointee to the Group Provident Fund scheme, which was superseded with effect from 01.04.2003 by Contributory Pension Scheme, held that the order of appointment was issued to the petitioner on 26.06.2013 giving the petitioner a week's time to join duty. After complying with the formalities, including medical fitness etc., the petitioner therein joined duty on 04.04.2003. It was further held that recruitment is the action of the employer while joining duty is the action of the employee. Therefore, when the petitioner was admittedly recruited prior to 01.04.2003, she is entitled to the benefits of the Group Provident Fund scheme. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the order dated 07.01.2008 passed by this Court in WP No. 35510 of 2007, wherein, in an identical circumstance, relating to admission of PG medical courses, this Court allowed the writ petition with a direction to the third respondent to award one additional mark as per clause 44 (a) of the Post Graduate Prospectus 2007-2008, Entrance Examination. 16. Having regard to the aforesaid orders passed by this Court and the fact that the petitioners could not join the post before 31.03.2014 due to bonafide reasons, especially when the next day happens to be a holiday, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled for the relief sought for in these writ petitions. 17. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. A Mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the petitioners for selection to the post graduate/MD/MS/M.Ch (Neuro-Surgery) Courses for the academic year 2014-2015 under 'Service Category' as per Clause 10 (a) and (b) of the Prospectus by reckoning the two year period of their service from the date of their selection to the post of Assistant Surgeon under the Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai on 27.03.2012 or on the date of issuance of appointment order viz., 31.03.2012, even though they joined the post on 04.04.2012, 04.04.2012 and 02.04.2012 respectively. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.