JUDGMENT : C.T. RAVI KUMAR, J. 1. The impact of availing Leave Without Allowance (LWA) for study purpose under Rule (ii) of Appendix XII-B, referred to in Exception No.2 of Rule 88 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules (for short, the KSR), before completion of probation in the entry cadre is the issue that calls for resolution in this original petition and it germinates for consideration in the following factual matrix:- The petitioner joined the service of the Revenue Department as Lower Division Clerk pursuant to an advice by the Kerala Public Service Commission dated 20.11.1989. Before completion of probation in the said grade, he applied for LWA and it was allowed under Rule (ii) of Appendix XII-B, Part I of KSR, for studying B.Sc Agriculture Course in the Kerala Agricultural University. On completion of the said course, he rejoined duty on 1.11.1994. Subsequently, as per order dated 1.11.1998, he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk. On getting further promotions, he reached up to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. While continuing so, as per Annexure A4 order, the petitioner was reverted to the cadre of Head Clerk/Revenue Inspector/Village Officer, essentially, on detecting the fact that he had availed LWA under Rule (ii) of Appendix XII-B of Part I, KSR. As a necessary sequel, his position in the various seniority lists pertaining to different cadres was revised. Aggrieved by the order of reversion and revision of seniority, he took up the matter before the Government through representation. As per Ext.A11, the third respondent had rejected his representation. It was in such circumstances that the petitioner filed O.A. No. 435 of 2013 seeking quashment of Annexure A4 and A11. He has also sought for issuance of a direction commanding the respondents to restore his seniority in various categories based on the seniority assigned to him as per order No. LRT (3) 25525/2004 dated 11.8.2004 passed by the second respondent. Further, he sought for a declaration that he is entitled to get counted the period of leave from 1.11.1990 to 1.11.1994 for the purpose of seniority. The respondents resisted the claims and contentions of the petitioner. Further, he sought for a declaration that he is entitled to get counted the period of leave from 1.11.1990 to 1.11.1994 for the purpose of seniority. The respondents resisted the claims and contentions of the petitioner. Essentially, their contention was that the petitioner was granted LWA under Rule (ii) Appendix XII-B of Part I KSR on the specific condition that it would forfeit all the service benefits and what was reserved thereunder was only the right to rejoin duty and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for. The Tribunal upheld the contentions of the respondents and the original application was dismissed. It is in such circumstances that the captioned original petition has been filed. 2. We have heard Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. T. Rajasekharan Nair, the learned Senior Government Pleader. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted LWA under Rule (ii) of Appendix XII-B of Part I, KSR for study purpose. Going by the same, grant of LWA thereunder would entail forfeiture of past service benefits and the sole right reserved thereunder was only to rejoin duty as a new entrant. Without any demur, the petitioner accepted the conditions and entered on leave and on completion of his study rejoined duty on 1.11.1994. True that without taking into account the fact that he was granted LWA and by virtue of the impact of Rule (ii) Appendix XII-B of Part I KSR, he was not entitled to get reckoned the period of service from 1.11.1990 to 31.10.1994, he was assigned seniority reckoning the said period as well and as a result, he was granted undue promotions, in the sense, promotions untimely. On obtaining such promotions, he reached up to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. In fact, his promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar was made under Rule 31(a)(i) of Part II of the KS & SSR. It was while continuing so that Annexure A4 order was passed reverting him to the cadre of Head Clerk/Revenue Inspector/Village Officer and his position in the various seniority lists were revised. The Tribunal, as per Ext.P2 order, upheld Annexures A4 and A11. It was while continuing so that Annexure A4 order was passed reverting him to the cadre of Head Clerk/Revenue Inspector/Village Officer and his position in the various seniority lists were revised. The Tribunal, as per Ext.P2 order, upheld Annexures A4 and A11. In a bid to canvass the position that Annexures A4 and A11 as also Ext.P2 order are unsustainable, the learned senior counsel relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Bindu vs. State of Kerala, 2008 (1) KLT 78 and the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sreekala vs. State of Kerala, 2007 (1) KLT 903 . The learned Senior Government Pleader contended that in view of the indisputable and undisputed facts obtained in this case, even going by the said decisions, the petitioner is not entitled to succeed. 3. We will firstly consider the contentions raised in the light of Bindu's case. In Bindu's case, the appellant/writ petitioner sought for a declaration that she was having seniority in the cadre of Legal Assistant Gr. II with effect from 23.12.2003 i.e. the date of effective advice for appointment to that cadre and further entitled to all the service benefits on the basis of that seniority. She had also sought for a direction to respondent therein to promote her to the cadre of Legal Assistant Gr. I before anyone of her juniors who were advised/appointed as Legal Assistant Gr. II after 23.12.2003, is considered for promotion. The learned Single Judge in the factual backdrop of that case considered the claim for such reliefs and ultimately dismissed the writ petition. The brief facts of that case were as follows:- The appellant/writ petitioner therein applied for LWA to join her spouse abroad. It was considered in the light of G.O. (P) No. 209/84/Fin. dated 12.4.1984 and G.O. (P) No. 76/86/Fin. dated 17.1.1986 and accordingly, accorded sanction for one year from 15.5.2005 to 14.5.2006 subject to the conditions laid down in the said Government Orders. Prior to the expiry of the leave, she returned to India and requested for permission to rejoin duty after cancelling the un-availed portion of the leave. It was permitted and she rejoined duty. While she was on leave, eight Legal Assistants Grade II were provisionally promoted as Legal Assistant Gr. I and among them, three were juniors to the appellant therein in the cadre of Legal Assistant Gr. II. It was permitted and she rejoined duty. While she was on leave, eight Legal Assistants Grade II were provisionally promoted as Legal Assistant Gr. I and among them, three were juniors to the appellant therein in the cadre of Legal Assistant Gr. II. Thereupon, she submitted representations requesting to promote her provisionally as Legal Assistant Gr. I retaining her seniority over those erstwhile juniors. In fact, LWA was granted to her in terms of Appendix XII-C of Part I, KSR. The contention taken by her in the writ petition was that Rule 5 of Appendix XII-A and C of Part I, KSR could not nullify the effect and impact of Rule 27(c) of Part II of KS & SSR. As noticed hereinbefore, the learned Single Judge repelled such contentions and dismissed the writ petition holding that the attempt on the part of the writ petitioner was to wriggle out the conditions on which LWA was granted and further that since she availed LWA before completion of probation in the entry cadre and therefore, she must have to undergo full period of probation on her return from leave as by availing LWA all the past service benefits accrued by her stood forfeited, relying on the decision Sreekala's case. The Division Bench carefully considered all the rival contentions and ultimately upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the appeal was dismissed. In the contextual situation, it is relevant to refer to the following recitals in paragraph 8 of the decision in Bindu's case:- Seniority is the period spent by a person while he is holding a post or lien on a post or as a member of the service, i.e. the benefit he derives by holding a post or a lien on a post or as a member of service. R.5 of Appendix XIIC takes away that service benefits once he avails of leave without allowance. R.27(c) of K.S. & S.S.R. provides that the seniority of a person appointed to a service, class, category or grade on the advice of the Public Service Commission commences from the date of such advice. It is difficult to accept the contention that seniority is not service benefit. R.27(c) of K.S. & S.S.R. provides that the seniority of a person appointed to a service, class, category or grade on the advice of the Public Service Commission commences from the date of such advice. It is difficult to accept the contention that seniority is not service benefit. The intention of the rule making authority is very clear that a person who has availed of leave for employment abroad or joining his spouse will have to sacrifice all his service benefits which is more clear by the following expressions used in the rules, i.e. "will have to start afresh" and "will be deemed as new entrant to Government service" etc. R.5 does not admit any room for doubt and is made amply clear that what is protected is only the right of the officer to rejoin government service in the same cadre as if he is a new entrant. We are of the view that on a combined reading of the above provisions, it is clear that R.27(c) of K.S. & S.S.R. cannot nullify the effect of R.5 of Appendix XII-A and C, Part I, K.S.R. We are therefore in full agreement with the reasoning of the learned single Judge in Sreekala's case. Under such circumstance judgment of the learned single Judge is upheld. Appeal lacks merit and the same would stand dismissed.” 4. In Sreekala's case (supra), the learned Single Judge held that the words 'service benefits' employed in Rule 5 of Appendix XII-A, Part I KSR would take within its fold seniority as well and ultimately, held that a combined reading of the relevant provisions under Rule 27(c) of Part II KS & SSR and the provisions under Appendix XII-A of Part I KSR would reveal that Rule 27(c) of KS & SSR could not nullify the effect of Rule 5 of Appendix XII-A of Part I, KSR. When that be the position, we are at a loss to understand as to how the decisions in Sreekala's case or Bindu's case (supra) would fetch favour to the petitioner. In fact, there is no room or reason for misconstruing the dictum laid down in those decisions. 5. When that be the position, we are at a loss to understand as to how the decisions in Sreekala's case or Bindu's case (supra) would fetch favour to the petitioner. In fact, there is no room or reason for misconstruing the dictum laid down in those decisions. 5. In the contextual situation, it is appropriate to refer to Rule (ii) of Appendix XII-B of Part I KSR which reads thus:- “In the case of those who have not completed probation in the entry grade, they shall, besides losing all the service benefits during the currency of the period of leave, forfeit the service benefits that had accrued to them prior to their proceeding on leave. They shall be deemed as new entrants to Government service on return from leave. They shall have to start afresh and complete their probation on return from leave. Only their right to rejoin Government service in the same entry grade is protected as if they were new entrants.” The impact of availing LWA before completion of probation in the entry grade is very specifically mentioned in Appendix XII-B. It would entail forfeiture of his past services and what would be protected is only the right to rejoin duty. There is no case for the petitioner that in the order granting LWA, those conditions were not incorporated. In fact, such conditions were incorporated in the light of the provisions under Appendix XII-B of Part I, KSR. In such circumstances, being a person who availed LWA prior to the completion of probation in the entry grade, the petitioner was having only the limited right to rejoin duty and at the time of his rejoining duty, he had actually re-entered in service as if a new entrant. Owing to the mistake to take note of the aforesaid position, the petitioner had obtained promotions and evidently, reached up to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that the power to correct a mistake as and when it is detected must be read into the inherent power of the authority competent. The mistake was detected and immediately thereafter, Annexure A4 order was issued. Reckoning the aforesaid fact, his seniority was re-fixed in various cadres and it is the re-fixation of the seniority taking into account the aforesaid aspect that resulted in his reversion. The mistake was detected and immediately thereafter, Annexure A4 order was issued. Reckoning the aforesaid fact, his seniority was re-fixed in various cadres and it is the re-fixation of the seniority taking into account the aforesaid aspect that resulted in his reversion. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot, legally, have any grievance. It is to be noted that the petitioner was not reverted to his entry grade and in fact, he was retained in the promotion post viz. in the cadre of Head Clerk/Revenue Inspector/Village Officer, by virtue of his revised seniority. In the contextual situation, it is only apropos to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagdip Singh, AIR 1964 SC 521 . When wrong orders passed by the administrative authority in such a manner as to affect third party interests, it should act as an authority for the proposition that whenever an administrative authority passes a wrong order it should be vouchsafed the power to correct its mistake to prevent miscarriage of justice. 6. In the case on hand, since LWA was granted to the petitioner under Appendix XII B of Part I, KSR, by its impact, the petitioner was not entitled to get reckoned the period from 1.11.1990 to 1.11.1994 for the purpose of seniority and as it was availed by him before completion of probation in the entry grade, his re-entry in service was just like a new entrant and therefore, reckoning his past service for promotion was nothing but a mistake affecting third party interests. In fact, in view of the indisputable and undisputed fact that the petitioner herein was granted LWA before she had completed her probation in the entry cadre under Rule (ii) of Appendix XII-B of Part I KSR, the action on the part of the respondents in cancelling the untimely granted promotions and in reverting her and also in revising her position in various seniority lists, taking into account the aforesaid aspects, cannot be said to be illegal. In fact, it is perfectly in tune with the provisions under Appendix XII-B of Part I, KSR as also the decision in Sreekala's case and Bindu's case. The petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the undue promotions granted should be protected. The upshot of the discussions is that this original petition must fail. In fact, it is perfectly in tune with the provisions under Appendix XII-B of Part I, KSR as also the decision in Sreekala's case and Bindu's case. The petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the undue promotions granted should be protected. The upshot of the discussions is that this original petition must fail. At the same time, we are of the considered view that since the service of the petitioner was utilised in the higher categories and there was no contribution or misrepresentation on his part in obtaining such promotions and also taking note of the fact that he had actually discharged the duties attached to the higher posts, no recovery pursuant to Annexure A4 shall be effected. We may hasten to add that this interdiction will not stand against the re-fixation of his pay in the present post, based on Annexure A4. Subject to the above, this original petition is dismissed.