JUDGMENT : The petitioner who is an Office Assistant working in the Institute of Human Resources Development ('the IHRD', for short) seeks to set aside Exts.P9 and P10 to the extent experience of the petitioner is shown as less than 3 years and to command respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Computer Programmer. 2. The petitioner submits that he and respondents 3 and 4 were appointed as Junior Office Assistants by Ext.P1 order dated 14.02.2006 and were notionally appointed to the promotion post of Office Assistants with effect from 13.03.2007, 01.03.2007 and 18.02.2007 respectively. In Ext.P1 appointment order dated 14.02.2006, in Ext.P2 order dated 10.07.2007 declaring their probation, as well as in Ext.P3 order dated 28.02.2008 appointing them as Office Assistants, the petitioner is shown as senior to respondents 3 and 4. On 14.06.2016, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P6 notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of Computer Programmer for being filled up by internal selection and one of the feeder categories was Office Assistant. 3. The petitioner satisfied the educational qualifications, contends the petitioner. As regards the experience, the petitioner entered service on 01.03.2006 and was appointed as Office Attendant on 13.03.2007. He was on Leave Without Allowance (LWA) from 20.06.2007 to 31.07.2013. Even after deducting the period of LWA, the petitioner has 3 years 1 month and 12 days regular service. The requisite experience is only 3 years. As per Ext.P8, the 2nd respondent issued Circular dated 24.10.2017 which is a provisional seniority list for appointment as Computer Programmer. In the said Ext.P8 list, the petitioner was placed at Serial No.1 whereas respondents 3 and 4 were at Serial Nos.2 and 3 respectively. As the petitioner had no grievance as to his seniority position, he did not file objection to Ext.P8. However, when Ext.P9 Final Seniority List was published on 31.01.2018, though petitioner's seniority position was retained at Serial No.1, his experience period was shown as 2 years 11 months and 16 days. This was done without hearing the petitioner. Ext.P9 Circular was published on 31.01.2018. Before the petitioner could submit his objections to Ext.P9, on 02.02.2018 respondents 1 and 2 in undue haste, promoted respondents 3 and 4 as Computer Programmers. The petitioner's representation dated 03.02.2018 against Ext.P9 remains unanswered. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. This was done without hearing the petitioner. Ext.P9 Circular was published on 31.01.2018. Before the petitioner could submit his objections to Ext.P9, on 02.02.2018 respondents 1 and 2 in undue haste, promoted respondents 3 and 4 as Computer Programmers. The petitioner's representation dated 03.02.2018 against Ext.P9 remains unanswered. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. As per the approved IHRD Service Special Rules, 2014, Notification dated 14.06.2016 was issued inviting application for appointment of Computer Programmers under 20% internal reservation scheme. As per Rules, an Office Assistant should have 3 years regular service under IHRD for appointment as Computer Programmer. In Ext.R1(a) application dated 14.06.2016 submitted by the petitioner, four years' experience was claimed. The petitioner had availed LWA for 20.06.2007 to 31.07.2013. On calculation of number of days, it was found that the petitioner has not completed 3 years of regular service as Office Assistant as on the date of notification. Hence, the petitioner was found not eligible for promotion. 5. The 3rd respondent in his counter affidavit contended that even as per the application submitted by the petitioner, he had only 2 years 11 months and 16 days service as on 14.06.2016, the date of notification. It is not sufficient to satisfy the service requirements as on the last date of submission of application, since Ext.P6 notification in explicit terms states that qualifications and experience should be satisfied as on the date of notification. Furthermore, the petitioner in his application for the post, has excluded his LWA period from 02.04.2007 to 07.06.2007 as service. When the petitioner himself has excluded the period of LWA in application, he cannot now contend that the said period should be considered. The petitioner filed reply affidavit denying the contentions of respondents 1 to 3. 6. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the pleadings. 7. Ext.P6 notification unequivocally states that the qualification prescribed should be one acquired by the candidate as on the date of notification. Therefore, the contention of the counsel that petitioner satisfied the experience/service requirements as on the last date of submission of application, cannot be accepted. The alternate argument of the petitioner is that he legally satisfied the requirement of three years service as on the date of notification, if certain period of his leave is taken into account as per Rules. 8. The alternate argument of the petitioner is that he legally satisfied the requirement of three years service as on the date of notification, if certain period of his leave is taken into account as per Rules. 8. The service particulars of the petitioner as disclosed in the writ petition are as follows:- 13.03.2007 to 19.06.2007 3 months 7 days 01.08.2013 to 14.06.2016 2 years 10 months 14 days Total 3 years 1 month 21 days During the above period, the petitioner was on LWA from 20.06.2007 to 31.07.2013. The petitioner was on medical leave from 02.04.2007 to 07.06.2007. If this period of medical leave is excluded, the petitioner will not satisfy the 3 year service requirement. 9. The argument of the petitioner in this regard is two-fold. Firstly, respondents 1 and 2 have recognised this period of medical leave as regular service in Ext.P9. Secondly, as per Circular No.38/2002/Fin dated 03.06.2002 of the Government of Kerala, Finance (Rules) Department, Leave Without Allowance granted on medical certificate, sanctioned under Rules 88 and 91 of Part I KSR, will count for service benefits. As against the said argument, the counsel for the 3rd respondent pointed out that a subsequent Circular No.72/2005/Fin dated 30.12.2005 issued by the same authority has clarified that LWA on medical certificate will entail service benefits only of seniority/promotion, increment, higher grade, pension and accumulation of HPL. 10. The first contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. If the period of LWA on medical certificate is not eligible to be counted for experience/qualifying service as per Rules, the mere fact that the said period is so counted in Ext.P9, cannot confer any right on the petitioner. Therefore, what is relevant is the requirement as to experience/qualifying service as laid down in the Rules. 11. The qualifications and requirements as laid down in Ext.P5 Special Rules of IHRD for appointment as Computer Programmer, are as follows:- Scale of Pay Rs.7990-200-9590-240-10790-280-11910-340-12930 Qualifications First Class PGDCA awarded by Director of Technical Education, Kerala/IHRD or from any of the Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognized as equivalent thereto by any Universities in Kerala or PSC, Kerala OR First Class B.Sc. Degree in Computer Science/Technology from any of the Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognized as equivalent thereto by any Universities in Kerala Method of Appointment 1. By Direct Recruitment (80% of the sanctioned posts) 2. Degree in Computer Science/Technology from any of the Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognized as equivalent thereto by any Universities in Kerala Method of Appointment 1. By Direct Recruitment (80% of the sanctioned posts) 2. By Internal Selection (20% of the sanctioned posts) Feeder Category : By selection from the categories of Trade Instructor/Tradesman (Workshop Assistant), Librarian and Office Assistant in the ratio of 2:1:1 Experience : 3 years regular service in the above post under IHRD Mode of selection:- As per Rule XIII at Page No.44 Appointing Authority Director, IHRD From the above, it can be seen that the 'Experience' required is 3 years regular service' in the feeder posts. The Rule is vague inasmuch as 'experience' and 'regular service' connotes two different aspects under service jurisprudence. If the requirement is 'experience', the candidate should have actually worked in the post and gained experience. Any period of LWA cannot be counted for experience, which should be actual. 12. But, as against the term 'experience', what is laid down in Ext.P5 Rules, is 3 years regular service'. For the purpose of 'regular service', the employer can treat any period of LWA or notional service as regular service in accordance with the Rules/guidelines applicable to the establishment. Therefore, what is the actual requirement, whether it is 3 years experience or 3 years regular service, has to be determined from the Scheme of the Rules. 13. The 1st respondent -IHRD has produced Ext.P5 Special Rules of IHRD. Ext.P5 contains the Rules relating to technical/supporting staff. Among the 13 categories of posts, 9 categories require experience as a condition for promotion/internal selection. Out of these 9 categories, in respect of 7 categories, fixed and certain years of 'experience' in lower categories is made mandatory. However, in respect of 2 categories, as against 'experience', fixed and certain years of 'regular service' in lower categories is the requirement. Thus, for the posts falling under technical/supporting staff, for categories of Senior System Analyst, System Analyst, Workshop Superintendent, Junior System Analyst, Foreman, Demonstrator/Workshop Instructor and Tradesman, fixed years of experience is made mandatory for appointment by promotion/internal selection. However, in the same stream of technical/supporting staff, as against the categories of Computer Programmer and Library Assistant/Lab Assistant, as against the experience, fixed/certain years of 'regular service' has been prescribed. However, in the same stream of technical/supporting staff, as against the categories of Computer Programmer and Library Assistant/Lab Assistant, as against the experience, fixed/certain years of 'regular service' has been prescribed. In the case of Computer Programmer, the requirement is 3 years regular service' in the post of Trade Instructor/Tradesman (Workshop Assistant), Librarian or Office Assistant. Thus, the different terminology used in the Special Rules for the post of Computer Programmer, would show that the rule making authority intended and insisted only 'regular service' for appointment by internal selection to the post and not 'experience'. 14. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, the eligibility of the petitioner need to be considered. It is clear that if the period of medical leave availed by the petitioner from 02.04.2007 to 07.06.2007 is treated as 'regular service', the petitioner will have 3 years regular service and will fall within the zone of consideration. Though the counsel for the petitioner and for the contesting respondents relied on Circular Nos.38/2002/Fin and 72/2005/Fin of the Government of Kerala, Financial (Rules) Department, which relate to counting of service benefits for the period of LWA on medical certificate under Rules 88 and 91 of Part I KSR, the pleadings in the case are not sufficient to hold that KSR and the Circulars on medical leave issued by Government of Kerala are made applicable to the 1st respondent -IHRD. In the circumstances, the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Computer Programmer, indeed requires reconsideration and re-examination at the hands of respondents 1 and 2. 15. Hence, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to re-examine the claim of the petitioner to treat his period of LWA on medical certificate from 02.04.2007 to 07.06.2007 as regular service for the purpose of appointment to the post of Computer Programmer notified as per Ext.P6, in the light of the observations made hereinabove. If the KSR and Government Circulars thereunder on counting of LWA granted on medical certificate are made applicable to the 1st respondent -IHRD, then the claim of the petitioner shall be considered accordingly. If the KSR and Circulars issued thereunder are not applicable, in such case, if the rules relating to the 1st respondent -IHRD provide for inclusion of such period as regular service, the petitioner shall be granted the benefit for the purpose of appointment pursuant to Ext.P6. If the KSR and Circulars issued thereunder are not applicable, in such case, if the rules relating to the 1st respondent -IHRD provide for inclusion of such period as regular service, the petitioner shall be granted the benefit for the purpose of appointment pursuant to Ext.P6. In case the finding of respondents 1 and 2 is to include such service as regular service, the petitioner shall be given appointment as Computer Programmer, with all consequential benefits, with effect from the due date of his entitlement. A decision in this regard shall be taken within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.