IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that probationers may be granted study leave under extraordinary circumstances, despite general restrictions, and that differential treatment of similarly situated individuals is impermissible under the law.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today, copy of which has been served to learned Standing Counsel much earlier, is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Apoorva Tewari along with Shri Shivang Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3. This is a Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 challenging the judgment and order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the writ Court in Writ - A No. 2075 of 2024 by which writ petition of the appellant/petitioner has been dismissed.

4. In the aforesaid writ petition the following reliefs had been sought:-

"a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash orders dated 30.01.2024, passed by the Director, Ayurvedic services, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, as contained in Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition;

(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the petitioner a study leave of 12 (twelve) months in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Financial hand book;

(c) Issue such other orders, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in favour of the petitioners; and

(d) allow the petition with costs."

5. The facts of the case in brief are that on 18.09.2021 an examination was held for admission to P.G. Course, namely, M. D.- Ayurveda Kayachikitsa, in which, the appellant being eligible participated. It was a three years course. Before the result of the said examination could be declared an Advertisement was issued on 23.11.2021 for recruitment to the post of Medical Officer, Community Health Center (Ayurvedic and Unani) in the services under the State of Uttar Pradesh. Written test was held on 31.07.2022. The appellant/petitioner qualified the same. She was called for interview which was held on 15.12.2022. The result of the selection was declared on 11.01.2023 and the petitioner was one of the successful candidates. Accordingly, an appointment letter was issued to her on 01.09.2023. The appointment was on probation of two years as Medical Officer in the Pay-scale of Rs.15600-39100 Grade Pay- 5400/- (Matrix Level - 10). The appellant/petitioner joined her service on the said post on 30.09.2023.

6. In the interregnum, the result of the entrance test to the P.G. Course referred above was declared and appellant/petitioner was admitted to the said course. She took admission on 01.03.2022 i.e. immediately after issuance of Advertisement i.e. 23.11.2021 and possibly after having applied for recruitment to the post of Medical Officer, Ayurveda.

7. By the time, she joined on 30.09.2023 she completed almost one and half years study in the P.G. Course and 16 months study remained, as, informed by Shri Apoorva Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant/petitioner applied for leave on 30.11.2023, however, the said application was rejected on 30.01.2024, meaning thereby, in view of this rejection the appellant/petitioner could not complete P.G. Course. Consequently, she challenged the said decision by filing the aforesaid writ petition out of which this special appeal arise. The rejection order is on record and the only reason assigned for rejecting the leave prayed for by the appellant/petitioner is that there is no such provision for grant of study leave to a probationer, especially as, the appellant/ petitioner had put in less than four months of service. Reference was made in this regard to Rule 81-B(4) and 84 of the Financial Handbook Vol. 2 Part-II and subsidiary Rule 146(2) as also Rules 81-B of Financial Handbook Vol. 2 Part- II to IV Chapter-10 and Subsidiary Rule 157-A (4). The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition with reference to the Rules referred in the order impugned before it as also Rule 84.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant in order to assail the judgment of the writ Court and the order impugned before it has invited our attention to subsidiary Rule 104(b) which relates to grant o