JUDGMENT : A rather interesting question is posed, if an employee can choose and be allowed to move back and forth between two services, under the purlieus of Rule 8 of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (‘KS & SSR’, for short). 2. The petitioner was originally working in the services of the 1st respondent – Kerala Water Authority and then sought to be appointed in the Motor Vehicles Department subsequently, which had been acceded to. 3. However, while working in the Motor Vehicles Department, he says that he came to be aware of the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Jayakumar S. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2021 (5) KHC 157 ], whereby, it had been declared that persons like him would lose the benefits of their earlier service; and therefore, requested that he be repatriated to his parent department, which was also acceded to, under the aforementioned provisions of Rule 8 of Part II of the KS & SSR. 4. The petitioner says that, however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has now taken a view contrary to that in Jayakumar (supra); and therefore, that he preferred Ext.P6 representation before the Kerala Water Authority (KWA), to allow him to move back to the Motor Vehicle Department (MVD). He alleges that, however, this request has been rejected through Ext.P7; and thus that he has been constrained to approach this Court vide this writ petition. 5. I have heard Sri. Julian Xavier J. -learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.K.G.Sarojini – learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 3 and 4. 6. The learned Government Pleader vehemently argued that Ext.P7 is irreproachable, because it is clearly recorded therein that the petitioner’s parent department was the ‘KWA’, from which, he had opted to move to the ‘MVD’; and to be then brought back to the former, invoking Rule 8 of Part II KS & SSR, which is a one time measure. She explained that, therefore, in such circumstances, the petitioner’s request, to go back to the ‘MVD’, is untenable and impermissible. She explained that, therefore, in such circumstances, the petitioner’s request, to go back to the ‘MVD’, is untenable and impermissible. I must say that there is great force in the afore arguments of the learned Government Pleader, because it is without contest – it being expressly conceded – that the petitioner’s parent department is ‘KWA’ and that he had chosen to initially move to the ‘MVD’, then to come back to the former Department, invoking his statutory lien, permissible under Rule 8 of Part II KS & SSR. Once this was done, there was no question of the petitioner then opting to go back to ‘MVD’, as if he had a further lien there; and hence Ext.P7 cannot be found to be in error. This is incontestable because, even as per the above provision, the employee obtains lien only in his parent department, to be able to return to it if his appointment in the subsequently appointed department had not been confirmed. On this having been invoked, there was no statutory lien left for the petitioner in the latter department, so as to then return to it – such being confined only in the parent department. In the afore circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed.