Rajasthan HC: Employee Entitled to Extraordinary Leave Under Rule 96 RSR for B.Ed., Rejection Citing Rule 110 & Dept. Interest Held Arbitrary - 2025-06-14

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Clerk's Right to B.Ed. Course on Extraordinary Leave, Quashes Rejection Order

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court recently allowed a petition by a Clerk Grade II, setting aside an order from the District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro, which had denied her extraordinary leave to pursue a B.Ed. course. The Court emphasized that an employee's application for extraordinary leave under Rule 96 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, cannot be arbitrarily rejected, especially by misapplying provisions meant for study leave (Rule 110).

Case Background: Aspiration Meets Administrative Hurdle

The petitioner, serving as a Clerk Grade II in the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro, since December 2017, secured admission to a B.Ed. course at Choudhary Bansi Lal University, Bhiwani, Haryana. She applied for permission to pursue the course and for the sanction of extraordinary leave (EOL) without pay, as per applicable service rules, having already deposited the admission fees.

Her application was rejected by an order dated September 6, 2024, primarily on the grounds that the B.Ed. course was not related to improving her work efficiency and thus not in the department's interest. This was not the first time the petitioner had approached the court; a prior writ petition (S.B.C.W.P. No. 13969/2024) had resulted in a directive on February 24, 2022, for the respondent to consider her leave application in accordance with the law.

Arguments at the Bar

Petitioner's Stance: The petitioner's counsel argued that the rejection of her EOL application was "illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable." Key contentions included:

* The application was made under Rule 96 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (RSR) for extraordinary leave, but was erroneously treated and rejected based on criteria applicable to Rule 110 (study leave).

* Precedents existed where similar leave had been granted to other employees for various courses.

* Granting leave would not hamper office functioning, citing that out of 190 sanctioned LDC posts in Jodhpur Metropolitan, recent transfers had filled many vacancies.

Respondent's Defence: Conversely, counsel for the respondents maintained:

* Leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as per Rule 59 RSR, and can be refused in public interest.

* The petitioner sought leave for two years, whereas study leave is generally considered for a maximum of 12 months.

* The B.Ed. course was not in the interest of the office, especially given a shortage of 23 Clerk Grade II staff and the need for computer-skilled personnel.

* The petitioner had availed 531 days of leave during her service and faced separate action for unauthorized absence.

* Reliance was placed on the Division Bench judgment in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dr. Sheikh Mohammad Afzal & Ors. , which pertained to Rule 110.

Court's Scrutiny: Distinguishing Extraordinary Leave from Study Leave

The High Court meticulously examined the arguments and the relevant service rules. The judgment highlighted a critical misstep by the respondents: confusing Rule 96 (Extraordinary Leave) with Rule 110 (Study Leave).

The Court noted:

"A perusal of the amended Rule 96 viz-a-viz Rule 110 leaves no manner of doubt that extraordinary leave is applicable in those cases where employees are disentitled to seek leave under Rule 110."

The amended Rule 96 RSR, effective from January 19, 2022, explicitly states:

“Provided further that a permanent/temporary Government servant may be allowed extra ordinary leave for prosecuting higher study for a period of two years to those, who is not entitled to study leave under Rule 110 or at his option, as the case may be.”

The Court found the respondents' reliance on the Dr. Sheikh Mohammad Afzal case (concerning Rule 110) to be misplaced, as the petitioner had specifically applied for EOL under Rule 96.

The judgment referred to an earlier Single Bench decision by Justice Arun Bhansali (then of this Court) in S.B.C.W.P. No. 13969/2024 (the petitioner's previous writ):

"The petitioners, had specifically applied for leave under Rule 96 of the Rules... Admittedly, though the study leave can be granted under the Rules, the petitioners at their own applied for EOL and as such, the reliance placed by the respondents on the provision of grant of study leave while rejecting applications, cannot be countenanced."

"...in the circumstances wherein the petitioners have cleared the admission test, and have been granted admission in the colleges, wherein they have deposited the fees, the rejection has to be on very strong and firm grounds as the authority also does not have arbitrary power to refuse grant of leave."

The Verdict: Leave Granted

Finding no reason to deny the petitioner the benefit of the amended Rule 96, the Court allowed the petition.

The Court ordered:

"Impugned order dated 06.09.2024 (Annex.4) is set aside. The respondents are directed to accept the extraordinary leave application of the petitioner within one week from today to enable her to gain the education of B.Ed. for which, she has already been granted admission at Choudhary Banshi Lal University, Haryana and she has deposited the admission/education fees."

This decision reaffirms that while granting leave is subject to administrative discretion, such discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or by misinterpreting applicable rules. It underscores the provision for government employees to pursue higher studies through extraordinary leave, especially when they opt for it or are not eligible for study leave under specific rules.