SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Raj) 889

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Laxmi Meena & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 801/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1416/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 50/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13125/2020, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1234/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12349/2020 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12373/2020
Decided on : 27-01-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. O.P. Sangwa, Mr. Hans Raj Nimbar, for the Appellant; Mr. Hemant Choudhary, for the Respondent.

A probationer cannot claim study leave for a course that is not relevant to their current duties and will not enhance their ability to perform those duties more efficiently.

Headnote:

STUDY LEAVE - LDC - RULES 109 AND 110 OF THE RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES - INTERPRETATION - A probationer cannot claim study leave for a course that is not relevant to their current duties and will not enhance their ability to perform those duties more efficiently.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an LDC, was pursuing a B.Ed. degree and requested study leave to complete the course. The respondents denied her request, citing Rules 109 and 110 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, which provide for study leave only for courses that are considered necessary in the public interest for the working of the department in which the government servant is employed.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to study leave because the B.Ed. degree was not relevant to her current duties as an LDC and would not enhance her ability to perform those duties more efficiently.

Issues: Whether a probationer can claim study leave for a course that is not relevant to their current duties and will not enhance their ability to perform those duties more efficiently.

Ratio Decidendi: Rules 109 and 110 of the Rajasthan Service Rules provide for study leave only for courses that are considered necessary in the public interest for the working of the department in which the government servant is employed. The B.Ed. degree that the petitioner was pursuing was not relevant to her current duties as an LDC and would not enhance her ability to perform those duties more efficiently.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition.

JUDGMENT

1. Since the grievance raised in the present batch of writ petitions is identical, these are being disposed of by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of SBCWP No.801/2021 (Laxmi Meena Vs. State & Ors.) are being taken into consideration.

3. The petitioner was selected on the post of LDC on substantive basis and an appointment order dated 16.07.2020 came to be issued in her favour.

4. At the time of joining on the post aforesaid, the petitioner was pursuing her B.Ed. (Bachelor of Education).

5. Petitioner is posted in Keshavray Patan, Bundi, whereas she was pursuing her B.Ed, in Jaipur, i.e., her home district. As B.Ed, is a full time course, petitioner was unable to pursue the same, along with discharging her services, while being posted at Bundi.

6. The petitioner, thus, submitted a representation dated 15.10.2020 before the respondents and prayed that she be provided study leave for pursuing Bachelor of Education.

7. Mr. OP Sangwa, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner is pursuing higher studies and the State should not come in her way of enhancing her educational qualification.

8. While informing that petitioner has already completed one year out of the two years' course, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is prepared to forego the salary for the period during which she is accorded leave and she would raise no grievance if her probation period is extended for a period equal to the study leave (if sanctioned to her).

9. Mr. Hemant Choudhary, learned Government Counsel, appearing for the respondents, submitted that petitioner's such prayer cannot be acceded to by the State and even this Court would not prefer to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction vested in it.

10. Mr. Choudhary invited Court's attention towards Rules 109 and 110 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (for short, 'the Rules') and argued that the petitioner having been appointed as LDC, cannot claim study leave for the purpose of completing her Bachelor of Education, firstly because she is a probationer and secondly because such qualification will not enhance her efficiency to discharge her duties as an LDC.

11. Heard.

12. Rules 109 and 110 of the Rules are applicable for the present purposes, which are being reproduced hereunder:-

    "109 - Study Leave - Applicability. The following rules relate to Study leave only. They are not intended to meet the cases of Government servants deputed to other countries at the instance of Government, either for the performance of special duties imposed on them or for the investigation of specific problems connected with their technical duties. Such cases will be dealt with on their merits under the provisions of Rule 51.

110. Admissibility of study Leave.- (1) Study leave will be admissible to a permanent Government servant to pursue course of study or investigation of a scientific or technical nature which in the opinion of the sanctioning authority is considered necessary in the public interest for the working of the department in which he is employed. It will ordinarily be not granted to a Government servant who has completed 20 years of service or more.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-rule (1) study leave will also be admissible to a temporary Government servant who has completed three years continuous service provided that the initial appointment has been made on the advice of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in case the post falls within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission or the appointment has been made by the competent authority in accordance with the rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or where such rules have not been framed the appointment has been made by the competent authority in accordance with the orders issued by the Government prescribing academic qualification, experience etc.

(3) In case of a temporary Government servant who

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top