RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

FACTS

1 A synthesis of science and divinity (at least for those who believe in it), led to the culmination of the petitioner’s desire for a child. Married, on 18. 01. 1998, to one Sh. Atul Pandey, the petitioner’s, wish to have a child was fulfilled on 09. 02. 2013, albeit via the surrogacy route. Her bundle of joy comprised of twins, who were born on the aforementioned date, at a city hospital.

1. 1 To effectuate the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner had entered into an arrangement with, one, Ms Aarti, wife of Mr Surya Narayan (hereafter referred to as the surrogate mother). The arrangement required the surrogate mother to bear a child by employing the In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) methodology. The methodology used and agreed upon required the genetic father to fertilize, In-Vitro, the ovum supplied by a designated donor. The resultant embryo was then required to be transferred and implanted in the surrogate mother. This arrangement, along with other terms and conditions, which included rights and obligations of the commissioning parents, as also those of the surrogate mother, were reduced to a written agreement dated 08. 08. 2012 (in short the surrogacy agreement).

2. The fact that the surrogacy agreement reached fruition, is exemplified by the birth of twins, as indicated above, on 09. 02. 2013. This far, the petitioner was happy; her unhappiness, however, commenced with rejection of her application dated 06. 06. 2013, for grant of maternity and Child Care Leave (CCL). By this application, the petitioner sought 180 days maternity leave and 3 months CCL. This application was addressed to respondent no. 3, with a copy to respondent no. 2.

2. 1 Respondent no. 3 vide a covering letter of even date, i. e. , 06. 06. 2013, forwarded the petitioner’s application to respondent no. 2, along with the requisite documents i. e. the surrogacy agreement and the birth certificate of the children. Respondent no. 3, sought clarification with regard to the request made by the petitioner for sanctioning the maternity leave. A perusal of the covering letter would show that the leave sought for the purposes of child care was not being objected to. A doubt, was raised only qua maternity leave.

2. 2 Evidently, vide communication dated 10. 10. 2013, petitioner’s request was rejected by respondent no. 3, based on, inputs received from respondent no. 2 vide two communications dated 04. 09. 2013 and 19. 09. 2013. The first communication appears to have been sent by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), [Headquarters], while the second was, evidently, sent by KVS (D. R. ). These communications, though, are not on record

2. 3 In sum, it was conveyed to the petitioner that there was no provision for grant of maternity leave in cases where the surrogacy route is adopted. The petitioner was, however, informed that the CCL could be sanctioned, in her favour, under Rule 43-A, which was applicable to “female government servants”. It now transpires that reference ought to have been made to Rule 43 and not Rule 43-A; a fact which was confirmed by the counsel for respondent no. 2 and 3.

2. 4 In the background of the aforesaid stand, the petitioner was requested to submit an application for CCL, in case she was desirous of availing leave on that account.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved, approached this court by way of the instant petition, filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution. Notice on this limited aspect was issued in the writ petition on 05. 02. 2014. Though counsels for parties were asked to file written submissions; except for respondent no. 2 none of the other parties filed written submissions in the matter. Counsels for respondents have not filed any counter affidavit in the matter. The reason for that, perhaps would be, that the facts in the matter are not in dispute. The issue raised in the writ petition is, a pure question of law.

4. I may only note that on 10. 02. 2015, respondents placed before this court an office m