JUDGMENT : P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. 1. The State/Department is the appellant. The challenge is against the verdict passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition, whereby the claim mooted by the writ petitioner for causing the prior service from 18.11.1985 to 16.10.1993 to be counted for the purpose of granting Higher Grade and such other benefits has been upheld, which is stated as contrary to the relevant provisions of law. 2. Heard the learned Govt. Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants and Dr.George Abraham, who entered appearance on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner. 3. The sequence of events is as follows: The respondent herein was appointed as 'LPSA' in an aided school, who commenced the service accordingly, with effect from 18.11.1985 and continued there till 16.10.1993. She tendered resignation to join another school under the very same management on 16.10.1993 and in fact joined the latter school in Kottayam on 18.10.1993, in a leave vacancy. The engagement of the petitioner in the said latter school was continued for different spells till 10.11.1995. Later, when a regular vacancy arose, opportunity was given to the writ petitioner to have permanent appointment. It was accordingly, that she joined the permanent post on 10.06.1996 and was continuing as above. 4. It is evident from the pleadings and proceedings that the service rendered by the petitioner during all these spells i.e. from 18.05.1985 till she was given regular appointment, was counted for the purpose of granting Higher Grade. It was accordingly, that the first Higher Grade was given on completion of 10 years w.e.f. 12.10.1997, followed by second Higher Grade on completion of 18 years w.e.f. 12.10.2005. The pay fixation was effected accordingly and the writ petitioner was drawing benefits in terms of the fixation as above. It was nearly 1½ decades later, that Ext.P2 Audit Objection was raised to the effect that the fixation given in the case of the writ petitioner was not correct, stating that the period from 18.11.1985 till 16.10.1993 could not be reckoned for the purpose of granting Higher Grades. On coming across Ext.P2, the writ petitioner preferred Ext.P3 representation before the Dy. Director of Education, which came to be rejected, pursuant to which, she approached the Director of Public Instructions (DPI), by filing Ext.P4 representation. On coming across Ext.P2, the writ petitioner preferred Ext.P3 representation before the Dy. Director of Education, which came to be rejected, pursuant to which, she approached the Director of Public Instructions (DPI), by filing Ext.P4 representation. This also came to be rejected as per Ext.P5 order passed by the DPI, which made the petitioner to approach the Government by filing Ext.P6 representation. The matter was dealt with in detail, leading to Ext.P8 order dated 23.08.2014, whereby the Government held that the period from 18.10.1993 to 10.11.1995, which covered the different broken spells under the latter school where the writ petitioner joined after tendering resignation from the former school could be reckoned for granting the service benefits, however making it clear that the service in the former school from 18.11.1985 to 16.10.1993 could not be reckoned under any circumstance. The writ petitioner was also given a chance to have 're-option'. This made the writ petitioner to feel still aggrieved, who approached this Court by filing a writ petition challenging Exts.P2, P5 and P8 proceedings. Reliance was sought to be placed on Ext.P7 G.O., which according to the writ petitioner permitted condonation of break up period to an extent of 5 years and that the matter required to be considered, as stipulated therein, on a case to case basis. 5. The claim mooted by the petitioner was sought to be challenged by the Department by filing a counter affidavit. After elaborate hearing, the learned single Judge held that, by virtue of the materials on record, there was no dispute with regard to the subsequent spell of service i.e. 18.10.1993 till 10.11.1995, which was held as reckonable for the purpose of granting the service benefits/Higher Grade as per Ext.P8 order passed by the Government. Then the learned single Judge held that, if this be the position, there was absolutely no rhyme or reason to have rejected the spell of service from 18.11.1985 to 16.10.1993 in the former school, as the gap in between was only by one day, i.e. much less than one month and hence well within the parameters prescribed by the Government so as to have the said service counted for granting the service benefits. It was accordingly, that the writ petition was allowed, which in turn is under challenge in this appeal. 6. The learned Govt. It was accordingly, that the writ petition was allowed, which in turn is under challenge in this appeal. 6. The learned Govt. Pleader points out that the version of the writ petitioner that the gap is only less than one month is not correct, as resignation was tendered after the initial spell of service from 18.11.1985 in the former school, only on 16.10.1993. The writ petitioner joined the latter school on a 'regular vacancy' only on 10.06.1996, though she had joined the said school on 18.10.1993 in a 'leave vacancy', followed by different spells of subsequent engagement. The gap between the date of resignation and the date of joining the regular vacancy on 10.06.1996 was nearly 'three years' and hence the petitioner was not entitled to claim the benefit of prior service for granting the service benefits, ie.. Grade benefits, submits the learned Govt. Pleader. 7. Despite our repeated query as to whether any Rule/G.O./precedent stipulating that the gap has to be calculated with reference to joining the 'regular vacancy', no positive reply is forthcoming. No such rule or G.O or precedent is brought to our notice as well. It is to be noted that the relevant G.O. sought to be relied on by the writ petitioner, i.e. Ext.P7 dated.17.07.1986 clearly reveals as to the circumstances under which the prior service could be reckoned. As a matter of fact, the Government had issued G.O. dated 26.10.1968 for the purpose of reckoning such service in the following terms (as revealed from the first paragraph of the said order): Government have in G.O.Ms.463/68/Edn. dated 26.10.68 ordered, among other things, that for the grant of higher scales of pay (in the case of Government School Teachers) approved service in aided schools will be counted on the condition that the service should be approved and continuous and there should not be break for more than a month between leaving the service of an aided school and joining the service in Government school and that in the case of aided school teachers the service in Government and local body schools will be counted provided the service is approved and continuous and there should not be break of more than a month between leaving the service of Government/local body schools and joining aided school. Resignation for this purpose will be overlooked.” 8. Resignation for this purpose will be overlooked.” 8. It is revealed from the very same order that there was some subsequent modification/clarification as per different G.Os issued on 21.04.1971, 02.05.1973, 30.09.1974, 13.09.1976, and 18.01.1979. The discussion made therein clearly reveals that, as per the G.O. Dated 30.09.1974, the initial stipulation as to the gap of 'one month' was virtually extended upto 'five years' so as to have it ignored and that the break in service in excess of 5 years was to be reported to the Director of Public Instructions for decision regarding counting of service before such break, whereas no condonation of break was necessary in respect of the former cases. This however came to be dealt with further and as per the subsequent G.Os., it was held that a 'case to case' examination was necessary, instead of granting an enbloccondonation up to five years. It was noted that audit objections were being raised, stating that individual consideration and clearance in this regard was not forming part of the record so as to have the breaks condoned, which led to various other proceedings. This was considered by the Committee for clearance of Audit objections and as per the 4th report mentioned in paragraph 7 of Ext.P7 G.O., the following recommendation was made to the Government: “Government may clarify that the orders issued in the Government letter No.34912/J3/76/G.Edn dated 13.9.76 and letter No.77712/J3/77/G.Edn. Dated 18.1.79 are not binding on the teachers in Government Schools as well as in Aided Schools who have been sanctioned higher grade, counting their pre-resignation service for taking up appointment in a Government School or Aided School as the case may be subject to the condition that there should not be break for more than a month between leaving the service of aided school and joining service in Government school or leaving the service of Government School/Local Body School and joining service in Aided School in terms of G.O.Ms.No.463/68/Edn. Dated 26.10.1966 or between leaving the service from Aided School and joining service in another aided school in terms of G.O.Ms.47/71/S.Edn dated 21.4.71 overlooking their resignation for this purpose”. 9. The above recommendation was accepted by the Government and it was held/made clear in the following terms: “The Government have considered the recommendation made by the Committee in this regard. They accept the recommendation of the Committee for clearance of Audit Objections and order accordingly. 9. The above recommendation was accepted by the Government and it was held/made clear in the following terms: “The Government have considered the recommendation made by the Committee in this regard. They accept the recommendation of the Committee for clearance of Audit Objections and order accordingly. However the Director of Public Instruction will report to Government individual cases of sanction of higher grade and matters relating thereto based on the above clarification, for appropriate orders.” From the above, it is clear that if the gap is less than one month, the prior service is very much reckonable (as clearly revealed from Ext.P7) 10. The above G.O. does never say that the subsequent joining duty after resignation from the service of the former school shall only be in respect of a 'regular vacancy', so as to have it counted as part of the service for granting the service benefits. In the above circumstance, the finding and reasoning given by the learned single Judge, that the service of the writ petitioner from 18.10.1993 was reckonable for the purpose of granting all the benefits, even according to the Government as per Ext.P8 G.O. and that there was absolutely no rationale for having ignored the prior service from 18.11.1985 to 16.10.1993, is perfectly valid and correct in all respects. No interference is warranted under any circumstance. There is no case for the appellants that the service rendered by the writ petitioner from 18.10.1993 i.e. after the resignation tendered on 16.10.1993 is not countable for the purpose of granting the service benefits. Then the question is only whether the rejoining duty on 18.10.1993 (after tendering the resignation) was after a gap of more than one month. Obviously, the gap is only by 'one day' i.e. 17.10.1993 (which is stated as a Sunday). In the said circumstance, we find that absolutely no tenable ground is brought to our notice to call for interference. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.