Honble PRASAD, J.–All these three writ petitions involve common question of law and facts. Hence they are disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1034 of 1996 are referred to. (2). The petitioner is an Ayurvedic Doctor (Physician) with the respondent Ayurved Department. He applied for undertaking post- graduate studies and by order dated 23.4.94 the Government of Rajasthan accorded sanction to the petitioner for undertaking the studies. The petitioner was admitted in the post-graduate course vide Annex. 2. Vide Annex. 3 dated 4.2.95, the petitioner was sanctioned leave in terms of Rules 110 and 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application to the respondents that since one of the employees of the Department viz., Shri Narain Lal Dhabai has been permitted to draw full salary, the petitioner should also be permitted to do so. The petitioner has set up this case on the strength of the concession granted to Shri Narain Lal Dhabai and also on the ground that by the orders of this Court the respondent State is gran- ting full salary to the doctors of Animal Husbandry and Medical Department who are pursuing their post-graduate studies. This Court, in a Division Bench decision rendered in the matter of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 72 of 1983, Dr. P.M. Bhandari vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. writ petition, decided on 1.8.88, has held that, ``M.D. Anaesthesia, M.D. in Radiology and Diploma Courses cannot be said to be degrees equivalent to D.M. and M.Ch. Thus, the distinction which is sought to be made by the State Government, militates against the Statute also. Since the candidates who have been sent for doing M.D. in Anaesthesia, Radiology and diploma courses have been provided the benefit of deputation instead of study leave retrospectively then there is no reason why similar treatment should be denied to the petitioners. We are constrained to say that such discrimination is seriously violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and it cannot be sustained. In yet another decision of this Court in the matter of Veterinary Surgeons, the Single Bench of this Court following the decision in the case of Dr. We are constrained to say that such discrimination is seriously violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and it cannot be sustained. In yet another decision of this Court in the matter of Veterinary Surgeons, the Single Bench of this Court following the decision in the case of Dr. P.M. Bhandari (supra) observed that, ``If medical Doctors are given benefit of full salary and allowances treating their study period on deputation for higher studies in Post Graduate course, there is hardly any justification to deny the same benefit to Veterinary Doctors who also prosecute higher studies in Post- Graduate Courses. Any differentiation in treating them could amount discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (3). In this regard, based on the analogy of two decisions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have been denied the benefit of being sent on deputation as it has been done in the case of Veterinary and Medical Doctors. (4). The respondents have put in appearance and have stated that the petitioners have applied for study-leave in terms of Rules 110 and 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules they are entitled to be granted study-leave and while a government- servant is on study-leave he is entitled only to half salary. Since the Rules say that on study-leave the employee is entitled to half salary and therefore the petitioners were given only the half salary and not full salary because it was not permissible under the Rules. (5). I have considered the rival submissions. It is no doubt true that under Rules 110 and 112, as and when a government-servant is granted study-leave only half salary is admissible to him but there is no bar when a Doctor is sent on deputation to grant him full salary. Since the respondent State has adopted the policy of granting full salary to the Veterinary and Medical Doctors pursuing post-graduate studies treating them on deputation, the same facility if not given to the Doctors of the Ayurved Department then as laid down in the case of Dr. P.M. Bhandari (supra) the practice would be hit by the vice of discrimination. Further, in the Ayurved Department itself, Shri Narain Lal Dhabai was permitted to be given full salary on the pretext that he did night-duty. P.M. Bhandari (supra) the practice would be hit by the vice of discrimination. Further, in the Ayurved Department itself, Shri Narain Lal Dhabai was permitted to be given full salary on the pretext that he did night-duty. There is no provision in the R.S.R. or, otherwise shown to me, that a person can do night-duty while he is studying and draw full salary. May be, this is a device to extend extraordinary benefit for undisclosed reasons. That being the position, the denial of full salary to the petitioners is discriminatory. In this background, the respondent State is directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for according them deputation and allow them to draw full salary. (6). The writ petitions stand allowed in the terms indicated above.