ORDER 1. Petitioner is facing a problem created by herself. Now, she wants to redeem the situation by filing a writ application which this Court is reluctant to do in absence of any rules or regulations for the kind of leave or prayer she is looking for. 2. The short facts are that petitioner became a Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005. Thereafter by a deeming fiction became Gram Panchayat Teacher as well. She worked in her capacity till 17.8.2012 and thereafter she committed an indiscretion which has come to haunt her now. The indiscretion was that for the so-called purported enhancement of education and acquiring a B.Ed. degree, she filed an application addressed to the Principal of the school in question in terms of Annexure-3 and without waiting for any kind of response or decision did the vanishing act and surfaced only after 9.7.2013 claiming a right as well as liberty to join the school and continue as a Panchayat Teacher. The respondent authorities including the Principal of the school have refused to accept the joining of the petitioner in view of the fact that she had gone missing from the school for about a year. It is in this background the writ application has now been filed for a direction upon the respondents to accept her joining. 3. The first question which stares the petitioner in the face is whether the rules relating to such appointment provides for a prolonged absence for obtaining higher degree or not. Counsel for the petitioner has fairly accepted that there is no provision. The application contained in Annexure-3 does not indicate or cannot even be read to mean that leave of said kind which has been talked about in 2012 amended rules can cover the indiscretion of petitioner of absence that may be for attainting B.Ed. degree. 4. Further, the fact is that no permission was granted by the authorities of any kind permitting the petitioner to absent herself for almost a year. Petitioner could have deserted the school with the object of enhancing her education, looking for better prospect but petitioner also had an obligation towards the children of the school, who also have a fundamental right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution of India. Even their rights have been violated. 5. Petitioner could have deserted the school with the object of enhancing her education, looking for better prospect but petitioner also had an obligation towards the children of the school, who also have a fundamental right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution of India. Even their rights have been violated. 5. This Court, therefore, cannot condone this kind of conduct of the petitioner especially when no rules support such kind of absence. The alternative submission of the petitioner that it may amount to a case of indiscipline, therefore, she should be proceeded departmentally and then a final decision should be taken is a misplaced submission since in the admitted facts, none of the definition which amounts to indiscipline fits into the nature of absence of the petitioner which was voluntary in nature. 6. In the totality, therefore, this Court cannot give any direction to the respondents to accept the joining of the petitioner. The Court can go to the extent of observing that it is a case of voluntary abandonment of the responsibility, if not deliberate breach of the contract for such engagement. 7. Writ is dismissed.