Judgment:- Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring respondent's eligibility for leave for higher studies under Rule 91A of Part I of Kerala Service Rules (K.S.R.) and granting consequential service benefits to him. We have heard Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The respondent with B.Sc. degree in Physics and B. Ed. was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant on 3.8.1999 based on his selection by the PSC. After serving five years as a UPSA, the respondent applied for leave under Rule 91A for Postgraduate studies i.e. M. Sc. Physics. Though the leave was applied for under Rule 91A, it was granted after the respondent joined M. Sc. course vide Ext.P4 dated 16.7.2005 wherein it is seen that leave applied for under Rule 91A was granted under Rules 82 and 88 of Part I, K.S.R. While leave granted under Rules 82 and 88 do not entail any service benefits to the respondent, he would have got all benefits if the leave was granted under Rule 91A in terms of his application. In fact, another teacher in the High School section of the same school applied for leave under Rule 91A and the same was allowed by the Government in terms of the request vide Ext.P3. The respondent successfully completed his M. Sc. course, returned and joined as UPSA and thereafter based on the higher educational qualification and the State Eligibility Test passed by him after M. Sc., he was promoted by transfer as Higher Secondary School Teacher on 23.7.2011. In between he filed W.P.(C) challenging Ext.P4 and for direction to respondents to grant leave in terms of his request under Rule 91A and to allow all service benefits. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition against which this appeal is filed. There is no dispute with regard to respondent's entitlement for leave and the same was in fact granted for the purpose for which he applied for and the respondent has accomplished his mission by completing the course study in M. Sc. and he has successfully passed out in the Post-graduate examination and later passed the SET examination entitling him for promotion by transfer to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher which in fact he got later. and he has successfully passed out in the Post-graduate examination and later passed the SET examination entitling him for promotion by transfer to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher which in fact he got later. However, question to be considered is whether respondent was in fact eligible for leave under Rule 91A or whether his eligibility is rightly decided vide Ext.P4 granting leave under Rules 82 and 88 of K.S.R. 3. After hearing both sides, what we notice is that Rule 91A is a provision for granting leave for higher studies to those with minimum service of 5 years but on condition that higher studies including Post- graduate studies is in the interest of public service. On the other hand persons without the required period of service and whose claims do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 91A are entitled to leave under Rules 82 and 88. Since all service benefits are available during the leave granted under Rule 91A, certainly leave has to be granted for higher studies under Rule 91A itself. So much so, the question to be considered is the correctness of Ext.P4 whereunder leave applied for by the respondent under Rule 91A was converted into an application for leave in terms of Rules 82 and 88 and in granting the same. Since the controversy is only on eligibility for leave under Rule 91A, we have to necessarily examine the scope of the said Rule and it's application to the respondent. Rule 91A is extracted hereunder: "Rule 91A. Officers with a continuous officiating or temporary service of 5 years or more may be granted in addition to any leave to which they are eligible for, leave for undergoing Post-Graduate Courses in the sphere of their duties which are primarily of benefit to the State, such as Post-Graduate Courses for Teachers, Engineers and Doctors. The leave shall be granted only with due regard to the usefulness of the higher studies to the public service." Government Pleader challenged the findings of the learned Single Judge contending that for performing the duties of U.P. School teacher which respondent was at the time of submission of application for leave, Post-Graduation is not required and the qualification the respondent already had namely, B.Sc. with B.Ed. was sufficient qualification. with B.Ed. was sufficient qualification. In other words, according to the appellants, higher qualification namely, Post-Graduate studies in the same subject and acquisition of wider knowledge for the respondent does not lead to any benefit to the State or to public service entitling him for the leave. The learned Single Judge, however, rejected this contention and held that acquisition of Post-Graduate Degree for a teacher in the same subject certainly will improve his faculties in imparting education to the student community and, therefore, it will benefit the State and public service as referred to in the Rule. Before us, counsel for the respondent submitted that the subsequent developments i.e. the benefit the respondent as well as the State and the community received with the higher qualification i.e. M.Sc. and the fact that he became a Higher Secondary School Teacher also should be reckoned while considering his eligibility for leave under Rule 91A. There can be no dispute that objective of Rule 91A providing for leave for higher studies to employees in service is to benefit the State and public service and just not for the personal benefits of the employees. This certainly pre-supposes that employee after acquiring higher qualification while in service on leave granted under Rule 91A should be available in the service of the State for the benefit of the public. However, there is nothing in the Rule to indicate that after acquiring the Post-Graduate Degree the person should serve for a minimum period of years and not even a bond is collected undertaking to be in service atleast for a minimum period after acquiring the higher qualification. Probably the learned Single Judge taking note of the presumption stated in the Rule itself held that Post-Graduate study for teachers will intrinsically make them more efficient to discharge their duties leading to benefit to the State and to the public service. Even though study for Post-Graduate courses only is stated as the ground for applying for leave for teachers and Doctors, the only condition in the Rule for eligibility for leave is that the higher studies should be useful to the public service. Even though study for Post-Graduate courses only is stated as the ground for applying for leave for teachers and Doctors, the only condition in the Rule for eligibility for leave is that the higher studies should be useful to the public service. So much so, what is required to be considered is the nature of service rendered by the applicant not only in the post he was holding at the time of applying for leave but the eligibility for promotion on acquiring higher educational qualification and the potential in him to serve the community in higher positions to which he is likely to be promoted. Even though Post-Graduate studies in Physics for the respondent would not have benefited the students he was teaching in the elementary classes in the Upper Primary School, considering his eligibility for promotion by transfer as High School Teacher and later as Higher Secondary School Teacher which he really got, we feel the Post-Graduate degree in Science acquired by him will make him a better teacher. Further, as already stated, we feel while considering leave under Rule 91A what the Government has to consider is the age of the applicant, the period of service he is likely to render after completion of higher studies, the higher positions he is likely to get and unless there is likelihood of his continuing in service after acquiring the higher educational qualification and there is a sufficient duration of service and usefulness of the education in the nature of employment, there will be no justification to grant leave under Rule 91A. All the tests are satisfied in the case of the respondent because he was aged only 36 years of age with 5 years of experience as teacher in the Upper Primary School and he was already B.Sc. B.Ed. in Physical Science when he went for Post-graduate studies on leave. Therefore, his long service and potential for promotion to the post of High School Assistant and later as Higher Secondary School teacher should have been in the contemplation of appellants while considering his application for leave under Rule 91A. Since the above tests stated by us apply to the facts of the respondent's case, nobody should hesitate to grant leave to him under Rule 91A which respondent was eminently entitled to. Since the above tests stated by us apply to the facts of the respondent's case, nobody should hesitate to grant leave to him under Rule 91A which respondent was eminently entitled to. We, therefore, uphold the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the Writ Appeal filed by the State directing the appellants to grant all benefits entitled to the respondent under Rule 91A. We also feel that Government should issue guidelines for grant of leave under Rule 91A attaching significance for reasonable duration of service after acquiring higher educational qualification, potentials of applicants for promotion and the usefulness of higher education in promoted positions and if required, a Bond can be provided for ensuring continued service for a reasonable period.