JUDGMENT :

Sameer Jain, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the State against the order impugned dated 23.02.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petition preferred by the respondents herein, was allowed.

2. Concisely noted, the factual narrative of the instant appeal dictates as under:-

2.1. That in pursuance to the notification issued for the NEET-PG 2020 Examination, the respondents sought a ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) from their employers, to participate in the said examination.

2.2. That at the time of seeking the said NOC, the respondents were employed in government service. Their portfolio/position reads as under:

a. Respondent No.1- Senior Demonstrator (Pathology), S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur. [Non-Clinical Branch]

b. Respondent No.2- Senior Demonstrator (Microbiology), R.N.T. Medical College, Udaipur. [Non-Clinical Branch]

c. Respondent No.3- Assistant Professor (Preventive & Social Medicine), R.N.T. Medical College, Udaipur. [Non-Clinical Branch]

2.3. That the NOC was issued to the respondents only for the purpose of participating in the NEET-PG 2020 Examination. It was categorically incorporated in the said NOC that the mere possession of the same, shall not automatically bestow upon a candidate the right to join the concerned course, which would be subject to the candidates, upon selection, applying/seeking a sanction for ‘study leave’ before joining the concerned course.

2.4. That after successfully participating in the examination, the respondents were allotted seats in medical colleges. They are noted herein-under:-

a. Respondent No.1- M.D. Paediatrics, J.L.N. Medical College, Ajmer [Clinical Branch]

b. Respondent No.2- M.D. General Medicine, R.N.T. Medical College, Udaipur [Clinical Branch]

c. Respondent No.3- M.D. Anaesthesiology, R.N.T. Medical College, Udaipur [Clinical Branch]

2.5. That as per the NOC so issued, the respondents submitted an application for the grant of ‘study leave’ to join their respective courses. However, the same was denied to the respondents as the respondents had secured admission in the PG Courses of the Clinical Branch, as opposed to the Non-Clinical Branch, in which they are rendering their services at the respective colleges/institutes.

2.6. That being aggrieved by the rejection of their ‘study leave’, the respondents approached this Court vide S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9331/2020, wherein vide order impugned dated 23.02.2021, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to relieve the respondents from service by way granting them a ‘study leave’ and thereby, permit them to join their allotted PG Courses.

3. In this factual background, learned counsel for the appellant- State has submitted that the order impugned dated 23.02.2021 is passed in contravention to the settled position of law and the rules framed in connection therewith. Therefore, it deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of the said claim, learned counsel relied upon Rule 59 and 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter, Rules of 1951) and submitted that a government servant cannot claim a ‘study leave’ as a matter of right. The discretion to grant ‘study leave’ is reserved with the sanctioning authorities. Furthermore, it was averred that prior to the grant of a ‘study leave’, the sanctioning authority is duty bound to assess and satisfy itself that the concerned course/training, against which the leave is sought, is necessary in the public interest for the working of the department/service in which the applicant is engaged/employed. Lastly, whilst bracing the averments made herein-above, reliance was placed upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Union of India vs. IM Havildar/Clerk SC Bagari reported in (1999) 3 SCC 709 as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court as rendered in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 911/2020 titled as State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr. Kamaldeep Khatri.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submi