cancelled by subsequent proceedings, he was not entitled to claim any benefit on the basis of the service rendered by him prior to the date of such re-advice. Since the Government had granted him salary for the period that he had actually worked it was found that he was not entitled to any further relief in the matter. Accordingly, the application has been dismissed. The aggrieved petitioner is before us. According to Adv.M.R. Anison, who appears for the petitioner, the petitioner had been initially advised for appointment by Ext.P1 and he was actually appointed on 10.01.2005. He had joined service on 28.01.2005 and had been working continuously there. Though it is true that his advice had been cancelled by Ext.P3, such cancellation was only with effect from 11.07.2005. Since he was re-advised on 12.07.2005, it is contended that his continuity in service was not affected. He had been relieved on 02.12.2005 and rejoined duty on 03.12.2005. However, the Principal had not permitted him to sign the attendance register up to 08.12.2005. Placing reliance on Rule 27(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 ('KS&SSR', for short), it is contended that the seniority of an appointee has to be determined from the date of first effective advice of the person. In the present case, according to the learned counsel, the date of first effective advice of the petitioner is 16.11.2004. Though the same was
