The word 'service' used in the relevant rule entitles the appellant to count the service rendered by him on a provisional basis, making him fully qualified for the post of Assistant Engineer.

1. This appeal is against the judgment of the learned single judge in O.P. No. 3815 of 1981. The Public Service Commission invited applications from qualified candidates in the Public Works Department for selection to the post of Assistant Engineers (Civil). It is clear from the notification Ext. P2 that Ist and IInd grade Overseers/ Draftsmen who had not less than 2 years service in the Public Works Department were eligible to apply for the post. The appellant was not called for the interview, though, according to him, he is duly qualified. He therefore approached this Court in O.P. No. 3815 of 1981 and obtained an interim order directing the Public Service Commission to interview him. Accordingly he has been interviewed and in the list of 8 selected candidates he has been assigned the 7th rank provisionally. It is not disputed that if the appellant was eligible he would be entitled to secure the appointment, as there were more than 8 vacancies at the relevant point of time.

2. The Public Service Commission took the stand that the appellant does not have the requisite service of 2 years firstly on the ground that the service relied upon by the appellant is not continuous and secondly on the ground that the service rendered by the appellant as a provisional employee cannot be regarded as service. It is not disputed that the appellant was a Draftsman Grade II in the Public Works Department as a provisional employee from 30-10-1970 to 1-11-1971. It is also not disputed that he was a regularly appointed Draftsman, Grade I in the Public Works Department from 4-3-1980 to 27-4-1981 when he made the application. So far as the experience in the cadre of Draftsman, Grade I is concerned, it was regular service. The stand taken by the Public Service Commission is that the experience as Draftsman, Grade II from 30-10-1970 to 1-11-1971 cannot be taken into account because it is provisional service and also because the service is not continuous for a period of two years. The learned single judge relying upon the earlier decision of this Court was inclined to take the view that the service from 30-10-1970 to 1-11-1971, though rendered as a provisional employee is service and should be taken into account. But the learned single judge dismissed the petition of the appellant on the ground that though the service is for the requisite period of 2 years, it is not continuous. The appellant was not holding the post of Draftsman, Grade II or Grade I from 1-11-1971 to 4-3-1980 with the result that there was break in service. It is on the ground that the service is not continuous that the learned single judge dismissed the original petition. Hence this appeal.

3. The relevant portion of the first proviso to Note 3 below R.3 of the Special Rules for the Kerala Engineering Subordinate Service (General Branch) with which we are concerned, reads:

"that in the case of First and Second grade Draftsmen/ Overseers they should have rendered not less than two years service as First and Second Grade Overseers"

The rule does not expressly require that the service should be continuous. No factors justifying inferences that the service should be continuous have been placed for our consideration. Hence in our opinion there is no justification for adding the word "continuous". That is also the view expressed by a learned judge of this Court in Elyamma v. District Educational Officer (1965 KLT 1185), wherein it is observed that the plain meaning of R.8 of Chap.27 of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 considered in that case does not justify adding the word "continuous" to the rule. In other words, in the absence of good reasons it is not possible to add the word "continuous" to the word "service" used in the rule.

4. It was however contended by Shri Kelu Nambiar, the learned counsel for the Public Service Commission that the finding recorded by the learned single judge that the provisional service can be taken into account is not correct. What is stated in the ru