THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

Writ Petition No.24561 of 2025

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the Court for issuance of a Writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus : (i) to declare the action of respondents in issuing the impugned order dated 02.08.2025 communicated on 06.08.2025 rejecting the request for extraordinary leave to pursue regular L.L.B. Course for the Academic Year 2025-2028, as wholly illegal, arbitrary, bereft of any material reasoning and consequently to set aside the proceedings dated 02.08.2025 vide ROC.No.1255/2025-C-3, communicated to the petitioner on 06.08.2025 (for short, ‘the impugned order’); (ii) to declare that the petitioner herein is eligible for grant of extraordinary leave to pursue her regular L.L.B. Course for the Academic Year 2025-2028; and consequently, (iii) to direct the respondents to accept the request of petitioner for grant of extraordinary leave to pursue regular L.L.B. Course for the Academic

Year 2025-2028.

2. Heard Mr. Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Vivek Jain, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the High Court for the State of Telangana, for the respondents.

3. Petitioner herein was appointed as Junior Assistant under the respondent on 02.05.2018. In due course of time, petitioner has completed her probation period. Thereafter, petitioner applied for the Common University Entrance Test [CUET (PG)-2025] through the National Testing Agency to pursue the Three-Year LL.B. Course in the Academic Session 2025-28. The petitioner also took permission from the respondents to apply and to appear for the said examination which was granted by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner participated in the above entrance examination and secured a score of 180 out of 300 marks. Basing on the said score, the petitioner was given an offer of admission at Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi.

4. It is here at this juncture that the petitioner had applied to respondent No.1 through respondent No.2 vide letter dated 09.06.2025 for grant of permission to pursue Three-Year LL.B. Course on regular basis for the Academic Year 2025-28. However, the respondent No.1, vide proceedings in ROC.No.1255/2025-C-3, dated 02.08.2025, rejected the request of petitioner to pursue the aforementioned course.

5. On the previous date of hearing, this Bench had instructed the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents to make available the reason under which respondent No.1 had rejected the request letter of the petitioner. The reason for calling for the said information was that the order passed by respondent No.1 not being a speaking order, neither the said order reflected any reasons for rejecting the request of the petitioner to pursue the Three-Year LL.B. Course.

6. To-day, Mr. Vivek Jain, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the High Court for the State of Telangana, appearing for the respondents, has produced the correspondence received from the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, addressed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to respondent No.1 herein, vide proceedings No.CCC- HYD/AW/E1/3086/2025, dated 12.06.2025, while forwarding the leave application of the petitioner. In the said letter itself, the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, in very categorical terms had mentioned that due to severe dearth of Junior Assistants in the unit, granting permission to the petitioner to pursue Three-Year LL.B. Decree Course on regular basis would cause hindrance to the regular office work. He further stated that he would not recommend the case of the petitioner for grant of study leave to the petitioner. Basing on the said information and recommendation of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, the respondent No.1 rejected the request of the petitioner vide the impugned