JUDGMENT 1. - In all these three writ petitions a common grievance has been made by the petitioners in relation to order dated, 10.1.94 and 13.1.94 passed by the Dy. Director, Agriculture (Admn.), Rajasthan, Jaipur cancelling the earlier orders dated, 3.11.93, 20.11.93 and 18,12.93 by which study leave had been sanctioned to the petitioners. 2. Facts of these cases lie in a very narrow compass. All the petitioners have been appointed in the Government service as Agriculture Supervisors by order dated, 15.9.93 (Annex. 1) in writ petition No. 369/94. Prior to their entry in the service the petitioners had been prosecuting study in B.Sc. (Agriculture). They applied for grant of permission to prosecute their study and for that they sought indulgence of the departmental authorities. 3. By Exhibit-4, petitioner Yogesh Kumar Verma was called upon to file application in the prescribed proforma. Similar direction had been given to other petitioners. Thereafter, three separate orders were issued by the Dy. Director, Agriculture (Admn.), Rajasthan, Jaipur on 3.11.93, 20.11.93 and 18.12.93 granting leave without pay to the petitioners and some other persons for prosecuting their studies. These orders were issued with the approval of the Director, Agriculture Department. 4. After the petitioners had undertaken studies for completion of their course orders dated, 10.1.94 & 13.1.94 have been issued by the Dy. Director (Admn.) cancelling the orders dated 3.11.93, 20.11.93 and 18.12.93. 5. Looking to the nature of controversy the Court had directed Shri B.L. Awasthi, learned Dy. Government Advocate, to accept notice and Shri Ranjit Singh Choudhary, Dy. Director, Agriculture (Officer Incharge) has appeared before the Court with the record in which the request of the petitioners for grant of leave has been entertained and which also contains noting in relation to orders dated 10.1.94 and 13.1.94. 6. Shri Awasthi, learned Dy. Government Advocate, has pointed out that study leave could not have been sanctioned to the petitioners in view of the fact that the conditions enumerated in Rule-110 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 have not been satisfied. Shri Awasthi also pointed out that the petitioners had rendered few months of service in the department after their regular appointment and they were not eligible to the grant of benefit of study leave. He submitted that since the order passed by the Dy. Shri Awasthi also pointed out that the petitioners had rendered few months of service in the department after their regular appointment and they were not eligible to the grant of benefit of study leave. He submitted that since the order passed by the Dy. Director, Agriculture (Adorn) sanctioning leave in favour of the petitioners were void, the same have been withdrawn/cancelled by the impugned orders dated 10.1.94 and 13.1.94 and by cancellation of the void orders no prejudice has been suffered by the petitioners. Shri Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that after the sanction had been given by the Dy. Director Agriculture (Admn.), the petitioners had started their studies and they would have appeared in the examinations; but for the passing of the impugned order. He submits that a right had come to vest in favour of the petitioners on the basis of the orders dated, 3.11.93, 20.11.93 and 18.12.93 and this right cannot be taken away without the compliance of the rules of natural justice. Shri Pareek submits that the petitioner had neither misrepresented before the authorities for sanction of the study leave without pay nor had they played any fraud in passing of orders in their favour and therefore, before cancelling these orders it was imperative for the respondents to have followed the rule of audi alteram partem. 7. From the record it is clearly borne out that none of the petitioners had made any misrepresentation to the departmental authorities and the orders had been passed by the Dy. Director, Agriculture (Admn.) after calling upon the petitioners to submit their applications in the prescribed proforma. It can thus be said that the Dy. Director (Admn.) considered the applications filed by the petitioners according to his own understanding about the rules and then only the sanction was issued in favour of the petitioners. It was natural for the petitioners to have started their studies in pursuance of the sanction given in their favour. Whether under Rule-110 of 1951 Rules the study leave could be sanctioned in favour of the petitioners or any one of them or not, was a matter which was required to be considered by the departmental authorities. It was natural for the petitioners to have started their studies in pursuance of the sanction given in their favour. Whether under Rule-110 of 1951 Rules the study leave could be sanctioned in favour of the petitioners or any one of them or not, was a matter which was required to be considered by the departmental authorities. If, at all, they thought that the petitioners had been given the benefit of study leave in violation of the Rules, it was imperative for the concerned authority to have heard the petitioners before making the impugned orders. That having not been done, I am of the view that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 8. This conclusion shall, however, not prevent the competent authority from passing a fresh order in accordance with the rules and the principles of natural justice. It is also necessary to observe that although the petitioners may not be found entitled to grant of study leave in the light of the provisions contained in Rule-110(2) of 1951 Rules, there appears some justification in the submission of Shri Pareek that the competent authority has got power to grant extra-ordinary leave to the petitioners in terms of rule 96 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. It need hardly be observed that extra-ordinary leave is granted to meet extra-ordinary situation. If the petitioners want to complete their course, it will be fully justified for the competent authority to invoke its jurisdiction of granting extra-ordinary leave to the petitioners. 9. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. Orders dated, 10.1.94 and 13.1.94 are quashed with a liberty to the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with the rules and principles of natural justice. However, it will be for the respondents to consider the request of the petitioners or any one of them for grant of extra-ordinary leave sympathetically.Writ Petition Allowed *******