##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:6540]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2468/2018

Pradeep Borana S/o Shri Narayan Lal Borana, By Caste Ghanchi,

Resident Of Opposite Railway Station, Luni, Tehsil Luni, District

Jodhpur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary,

Department Of Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan,

Jaipur.

2. The Addl. Director Training/admin, Medical And Health

Services, Rajasthan, Health Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jodhpur.

4. The Principal Medical Officer, Government Bangad

Hospital, Pali.

5. The Medical Officer Incharge, Community Health Centre

Luni, District Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yashpal Khileree.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC with

Mr. Vivek Sharma.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

05/02/2026

1. The petitioner herein seeks directions to the respondents to

grant him the benefit of study leave for the GNM training course of

the year 2014-2015 attended by him, along with all consequential

benefits.

2. Heard

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by a judgment

rendered by Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case titled Himmat

Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.17843/2015) decided on 30.11.2022, wherein it

has been held as under :-

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 03:06:36 PM)

(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:19:55 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6540] (2 of 4) [CW-2468/2018]

“I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for

the parties and perused the material available on record.

This Court deems it proper to quote Rule 112 of the Rajathan

Service Rules, 1951 as under :-

“112. Condition for grant of Study leave. — (I) Study

leave shall be granted to enable a to pursue a course

of study or investigation of a scientific or technical

nature either in India or outside India provided that it

is certified by the authority competent to sanction

that the grant of study leave will be in the interest of

the working of the department or the service to which

the Government servant belongs. The authority

competent to grant study leave shall ensure that it is

not granted to a Government servant with such

frequency work or to cause cadre difÏculties owing to

his as to remove him from contact with his regular

absence on leave. A period of 12 months at one time

should ordinarily be regarded as a suitable maximum

and should not be exceeded save for exceptional

reasons.

(ii) The total period of study leave during the

entire period of service of a Government servant shall

not be more than 24 months. It may be taken in one

spell or more than one spell. Study leave may be

combined with other kinds of leave, but in no case

shall the grant of this leave in combination with leave,

other than extra-ordinary leave, involve a total

absence of more than twenty-eight months from the

regular duties of the Government servant.

(2) Study Leave is extra leave on half pay and leave

salary during such leave shall be regulated in

accordance with rule 97(2).

(Emphasis supplied.)

This Court on bare perusal of the Rule 112 of the Rajasthan

Service Rules, 1951 finds that the study leave is granted to

Government servant to enable him to pursue the course of study and

grant of study leave should be in the interest of working of the

Department or the service to which Government Servant belongs.

This Court finds that if the study leave is in the interest of the

working of the Department, then it cannot be said that the person,

who is in Class-IV cadre and acquires qualification of GNM, the same

would not be in the interest of working of the Department.

The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that

the Rule 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 also provides a

condition that if the Government Servant wants study leave, it

should be in the interest of the service to which Government servant

belongs, this Court finds that if the Rule making authority has clearly

demarcated tw