The decision to grant study leave to government servants is not a matter of right and must be considered in light of the exigencies of public service, as per Rule 50 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioner interalia seeking a direction against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to issue the relieving order and grant study leave to him in order to enable him pursue MD/MS Course in Pediatrics from Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh ('PGI', for short), as the petitioner satisfies the criteria laid down for grant of study leave in the office memorandum dated November 02, 2012 and after taking due permissions from the respondents.

2. It is the case of the petitioner and so contended by Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned Sr. Counsel that the petitioner, after taking the required permissions from the respondent No.2 applied for the INICET-2020 examination, which he cleared. He secured a rank of 15270 from amongst 80000 candidates, who appeared. That apart, he is a sponsored candidate from the respondent No.2.

3. The petitioner, on being successfully, attended the offline counseling for MD/MS course at PGI, was allotted a seat in MD (Pediatrics) course. The DDU hospital where the petitioner is working even issued the required certificate and NOC to the petitioner. The certificate clearly states that the hospital did not need a substitute for the petitioner. However, after completing due formalities, when the petitioner submitted his study leave as per the Rules, on December 31, 2020, the respondents 1 and 2 deliberately delayed in granting the same to the petitioner. In the meantime, the respondent No.3 i.e PGI extended the last date for accepting the seat allotment to the petitioner till January 18, 2021 with a condition that in case, the petitioner fails to get the study leave by then from the respondent No.2, in that case, it shall cancel the seat and allot the same to some other candidate.

4. It was only on his visit to the secretariat on January 08, 2021 that he came to know that his application has not been forwarded. He was orally informed; that he has not been granted study leave on account of COVID-19. Ms Luthra submitted that denying study leave to the petitioner on account of COVID-19 is untenable since the data released by the respondent No.2 itself reveals the situation of COVID-19 with regard to management of pandemic and availability of beds in Delhi hospitals has improved considerably in the last couple of weeks and recently 326 Doctors have been freshly recruited as Medical Officers by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which is evident from office order dated May 01, 2020. She submitted that the petitioner is a meritorious student and joining the MD/MS course at the most prestigious Institution of the Country, would be in public interest, for the betterment of the institution where he is working.

5. That apart, she submitted that similarly placed Doctors were granted study leave at the time when the number of COVID cases were at the peak and maximum number of beds were assigned for COVID patients in the hospital. She stated that in the DDU hospital, there are twenty (20) beds, which are vacant as of date, so the reasoning given by the respondents 1 and 2 for not granting the study leave due to COVID-19 is clearly an untenable reason. She supports her submission by relying upon the following judgments:-

(i) Dr. J. Samjaison vs. The Dy. Director of Health Services and Ors., W.P.(MD) No. 10275/2020 and W.P.(MD) No. 9153/2020

(ii) Dr. Kamal Jain vs. State of Rajasthan W.P. 5532/2020 dated May 15, 2020 decided on August 28, 2020;

(iii) Professor Udaya Kumar vs. Jawaharlal Nehru University through its Registrar, W.P.(C) 5496/2020 dated September 14, 2020;

(iv) Dr. Anil Prasad Gara vs. State of Bihar and Ors., (1992) 1 BLJR 485;

(v) Ganesh Prasad Shukla vs. Guru Ghasi Das Central University,MANU/SG/0209/208;

(vi) Dr. Puneet Mishra vs. GNCTD, W.P.(C) 4590/2020; Orders dated July 27, 2020 and September 29, 2020.

She seeks the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the writ petition.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 and 3 a