Probationers do not have a right to claim study leave; such leave is at the discretion of the government based on public service exigencies.

JUDGMENT

1. All these proceedings arise out of common background. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment.

2. We have heard learned Advocates for the respective parties in writ petitions and appeals respectively, who at our request appeared on advance copy, since the central issue involved is common and is also raised in Writ Petition No.5532/2020 which has been placed along with this group. Delay in filling the appeals is condoned in each appeal.

3. The central issue arising is the request of the medical officers appointed in government service for grant of study leave during the period of probation which the government resists. This issue has come up before this Court on number of occasions but so far has been dealt with by learned Single Judges. There has been a diversion of opinions. In some cases, the learned Single Judges have allowed the writ petitions and directed the government to grant study leave. In some cases, the petitions have been dismissed. These issues are otherwise also time bound. Once the study leave is granted under interim or final order of the learned Single Judge and the employee joins the higher PG medical course, even on the ground of equity and other considerations it would be difficult to recall the admission. If the petition is dismissed, the employee would in any way miss the deadline for enrolling in the PG course by the time he can approach the division bench and secure an order in his favour. It is perhaps because of this reason that majority of the judgments of the learned Single Judges have not traveled further. Therefore, in order to resolve this controversy, we heard learned advocates at a considerable length.

4. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the Government service rules do not prohibit grant of study leave to a probationer. Higher training obtained by the employees would enhance their quality of service. Even in the public interest therefore, government cannot object to grant of study leave to such candidates. By various judgments, the Single Judges of this Court have granted such permissions in past. Such trend which is existing since long should not be reversed.

5. On the other hand, learned Government advocate submitted that leave to an individual employee is always at the discretion of the employer. The service rules governing the petitioners specifically prohibit grant of study leave to a probationer. The government has issued circulars which also highlight this aspect. There is severe shortage of medical officers particularly in the rural areas. If therefore the government is unable to spare the services of doctors who have just joined the service for higher education, such policy is reasonable and no direction contrary to the same should be given. Counsel pointed out that in the recent appointments of medical officers the Government has inserted a condition that considering the Corona situation, study leave shall not be granted for a specified period. He drew our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Rohit Kumar Vs. Secretary Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Ors. : (2021) 8 SCC 381 in which such condition has been upheld.

6. Before we offer our interpretation of the statutory provisions, we may take a quick look at the views expressed by the learned Single Judges on this question. Learned Single Judge in the case of Deepika Motwani Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : SBCWP No.6191/2006 in a judgment dated 30/05/2008 held that for grant of study leave there is a mandatory requirement that the employee has to complete three years of continuous service. Study leave can be granted even to a temporary government servant however it has to be certified that the same is in the public interest. It was also found that the employee concerned had obtained admission in the B.Ed. course without seeking permission and study leave. Under such circumstances the petition was dismissed.

7. Another learned Single Judge in case