JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected with the impugned order of rejection for re-appointment passed without jurisdiction by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No. 013876/A2/19 dated 29.05.2020 quash the same and consequently, to direct the first respondent for re-appointment of the petitioner in terms of Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 in the existing or future vacancies of B.T.Assistant.) The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records connected with the impugned order of rejection for reappointment passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.013876/6A/2/19, dated 29.05.2020, quash the same and consequently, to direct the first respondent to reappoint the petitioner in terms of Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 in the existing vacancy of B.T.Assistant. 2. By consent of both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 3. The short facts required to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that, the petitioner is the Post Graduate in Physics and also passed B.Ed., examination, thereafter, she appeared for the competitive examination conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board for the year 2006-2007 and was selected for appointment to the post of B.T.Assistant. Accordingly, she was appointed and had been working at Government Higher Secondary School for Boys at Kottoor of Coimbatore District, where he joined on 07.03.2007. Subsequently, she was transferred to the Corporation of Madurai on her own request and was appointed as B.T.Assistant (Science) and posted at the Corporation EVR Nagammai Girls Higher Secondary School and joined there on 07.10.2009. 4. While working in the said School, the petitioner had taken 90 days Unearned Leave from 02.06.2010 to 30.08.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner has also taken Maternity Leave for 90 days from 02.02.2011 to 29.05.2011. 5. 4. While working in the said School, the petitioner had taken 90 days Unearned Leave from 02.06.2010 to 30.08.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner has also taken Maternity Leave for 90 days from 02.02.2011 to 29.05.2011. 5. That apart, the petitioner had also taken leave on loss of pay from 02.09.2010 to 31.01.2011 i.e., for 152 days and again, from 01.07.2011 to 26.11.2011 for another 149 days and therefore, due to her family circumstances, she had applied for such a long leave even under loss of pay and ultimately, because of personal reasons or family circumstances, the petitioner tendered her resignation which was accepted by the respondents/authorities with effect from 29.12.2012. Accordingly, the petitioner left the job. 6. While that being so, after 7 years, now the petitioner has given a request to the respondents to reappoint her as B.T.Assistant (Science) or any other post available in the respondent Office. It is further to be noted that, such an application was given under Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, accordingly, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P(MD).No.2172 of 2020 in the matter of V.Sumathi Vs. The Special Officer and Commissioner of Madurai Corporation, Madurai and sought for a Writ of Mandamus to consider her request for reappointment. A learned Judge of this Court, by order dated 04.02.2020, while disposing that Writ petition, has given a direction to the respondent therein i.e., the Special Officer and Commissioner Madurai Corporation, who is the respondent herein also, to consider the said representation given by the petitioner, dated 05.08.2019 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders, within a period of twelve (12) weeks. 7. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the representation of the petitioner, dated 05.08.2019 was considered on merits and in accordance with law, by the respondents, who after having considered the same rejected the said request of the petitioner through the impugned order dated 29.05.2020. 8. Mr.S.Govindan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to Section 49 of the 'Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act 2016' (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). 9. For the sake of easy understanding the said Section 49 of the Act is extracted hereunder. '49. 8. Mr.S.Govindan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to Section 49 of the 'Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act 2016' (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). 9. For the sake of easy understanding the said Section 49 of the Act is extracted hereunder. '49. A member of a service shall, if he resigns his appointment, forfeit not only the service rendered by him in the particular post held by him at the time of resignation, but all his previous service under the Government. The reappointment of such person to any service shall be treated in the same way as a first appointment to such service by direct recruitment and all the provisions governing such appointment shall apply and on such re-appointment, he shall not be entitled to count any portion of his previous service for any benefit or concession admissible under this Act: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall affect the operation of the proviso to Rule 23 or of Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Liberalised Pension Rules, 1978: Provided further that a member of a service, who has resigned his appointment and contested in the General Election to Parliament or State Legislature or in the elections to local bodies either as a party candidate or as an independent candidate shall not be eligible for reappointment to any service.' 10. By relying upon this provision i.e., Section 49 of the Act, the learned counsel would argue that, a member of a service, if he resigned his appointment or job, will forfeit not only the service rendered by him in the particular post, but also the previous service rendered by him under the Government. 11. The second limb of Section 49 of the Act, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, can very well be pressed into service in the case of the petitioner. In this context, the learned counsel would urge that, the words, “the reappointment of such person to any service”, as employed in the second limb of Section 49 means, the person, who resigned his job, even though forfeit all his rights on the service rendered by him in the same job or any other job previously held, would be entitled to get a reappointment of the same job or any other job. Therefore, Section 49 of the Act enables the person like the petitioner who resigned the job to seek reemployment of the same job or any other job from the Government by merely making an application. 12. The learned counsel thus made his submission to state that, the person, who resigned the job, if desires to get back the same job or any other post or job from the Government, need not stand in the line or to make application as if that he is one of the open market candidate along with others and to undergo the appointment procedure to be adopted by the recruiting agency or appointing authority. Instead, he can straight away seek the said job as the reappointment by merely making an application to the appointing authority of the job held by him before his resignation. 13. I am afraid to have such a proposition from the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by giving interpretation to Section 49 of the Act. 14. Section 49 of the Act no doubt deals with the consequence of resignation of a Government servant. Once a Government servant resigned his job on his own voluntary action and such resignation is accepted by the Government or employer or authority, then the person, who resigned the job, not only will forfeit the entire service rendered by him in the particular job held by him, but also all the previous services rendered by him in any other capacity under the Government prior to the resignation, that is the first effect of Section 49 of the Act. 15. The second effect is that, the person, who resigned the job, desires to seek for reappointment or reemployment, he can seek such reemployment like any other open market candidate by undergoing all procedures to be adopted by the recruiting agency or appointing authority, and if such reemployment is given to the person, who resigned the job, the previous services rendered by him in the post held by him before resignation or in any other post held by him before resignation and such of his service would not be taken into account or would not be counted. This second limb of Section 49 only has given a leverage to the persons, who resigned the Government job, to get reappointed, that means, there is no prohibition for the job seeker, who already resigned the Government job, to get a fresh job, that does not mean that, he can straight away seek for the earlier job held by him or any other equivalent job, by merely making a single application to the appointing authority to get the job without subjecting himself in any selection procedure by competing with other candidates. Therefore, the said interpretation sought to be given by the petitioner cannot be accepted and countenanced by this Court as it will be destroying the very purpose of having Section 49 to have the said consequences pursuant to the resignation of the Government job by an employee whose resignation is accepted by the authorities or employer concerned. 16. Therefore, this Court feels that, absolutely there is no infirmity or unlawfulness attached with the impugned order passed by the second respondent, vide his order, dated 29.05.2020. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the writ petition deserved to be rejected as it fails to make any success in this regard. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.