Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 211 (RAJ)

Laxmi Meena v. State Of Rajasthan

2021-01-27

DINESH MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. Since the grievance raised in the present batch of writ petitions is identical, these are being disposed of by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of SBCWP No.801/2021 (Laxmi Meena Vs. State & Ors.) are being taken into consideration. 3. The petitioner was selected on the post of LDC on substantive basis and an appointment order dated 16.07.2020 came to be issued in her favour. 4. At the time of joining on the post aforesaid, the petitioner was pursuing her B.Ed. (Bachelor of Education). 5. Petitioner is posted in Keshavray Patan, Bundi, whereas she was pursuing her B.Ed, in Jaipur, i.e., her home district. As B.Ed, is a full time course, petitioner was unable to pursue the same, along with discharging her services, while being posted at Bundi. 6. The petitioner, thus, submitted a representation dated 15.10.2020 before the respondents and prayed that she be provided study leave for pursuing Bachelor of Education. 7. Mr. OP Sangwa, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner is pursuing higher studies and the State should not come in her way of enhancing her educational qualification. 8. While informing that petitioner has already completed one year out of the two years' course, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is prepared to forego the salary for the period during which she is accorded leave and she would raise no grievance if her probation period is extended for a period equal to the study leave (if sanctioned to her). 9. Mr. Hemant Choudhary, learned Government Counsel, appearing for the respondents, submitted that petitioner's such prayer cannot be acceded to by the State and even this Court would not prefer to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction vested in it. 10. Mr. Choudhary invited Court's attention towards Rules 109 and 110 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (for short, 'the Rules') and argued that the petitioner having been appointed as LDC, cannot claim study leave for the purpose of completing her Bachelor of Education, firstly because she is a probationer and secondly because such qualification will not enhance her efficiency to discharge her duties as an LDC. 11. Heard. 12. Rules 109 and 110 of the Rules are applicable for the present purposes, which are being reproduced hereunder:- "109 - Study Leave - Applicability. The following rules relate to Study leave only. 11. Heard. 12. Rules 109 and 110 of the Rules are applicable for the present purposes, which are being reproduced hereunder:- "109 - Study Leave - Applicability. The following rules relate to Study leave only. They are not intended to meet the cases of Government servants deputed to other countries at the instance of Government, either for the performance of special duties imposed on them or for the investigation of specific problems connected with their technical duties. Such cases will be dealt with on their merits under the provisions of Rule 51. 110. Admissibility of study Leave.- (1) Study leave will be admissible to a permanent Government servant to pursue course of study or investigation of a scientific or technical nature which in the opinion of the sanctioning authority is considered necessary in the public interest for the working of the department in which he is employed. It will ordinarily be not granted to a Government servant who has completed 20 years of service or more. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-rule (1) study leave will also be admissible to a temporary Government servant who has completed three years continuous service provided that the initial appointment has been made on the advice of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in case the post falls within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission or the appointment has been made by the competent authority in accordance with the rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or where such rules have not been framed the appointment has been made by the competent authority in accordance with the orders issued by the Government prescribing academic qualification, experience etc. (3) In case of a temporary Government servant who has completed three years continuous service and is not covered by provisions of sub-rule (2)above extra ordinary leave may be granted for a period of two years for purpose of prosecuting higher studies certified to be in the public interest in relaxation of provision contained in rule 96 (b) of Rajasthan Service Rules." 13. A perusal of the above quoted rules leaves no room for ambiguity that the rules provide for grant of study leave to a Government servant, so that he/she can enhance his/her capability or acquire specific or technical skill, which in the opinion of the sanctioning authority, is useful or in the public interest. A perusal of the above quoted rules leaves no room for ambiguity that the rules provide for grant of study leave to a Government servant, so that he/she can enhance his/her capability or acquire specific or technical skill, which in the opinion of the sanctioning authority, is useful or in the public interest. Such qualification should help a candidate in efficient discharge of his/her duties in the concerned department. 14. Admittedly, the petitioner is a probationer. Be that as it may, even if, for the sake of argument it is accepted, that a probationer can claim study leave for better qualification, this Court is of the view that in the face of Rules 109 and 110 of the Rules, the petitioner cannot claim study leave even at the strength of the undertaking that she is prepared to give. 15. The intention of the Legislature, while incorporating Rules 109 and 110 of the Rules, is clear. The Rules grant study leave to a Government servant so that he/she can acquire higher, better and technical education and skills, which would ultimately enhance his/her capability to discharge his/her duties and in turn benefit the employer-State. In a case where the course, a candidate is pursuing, is not going to help the candidate in any manner, in discharge of his/her present duties, the competent authority can very well deny grant of study leave. 16. In the present case, the petitioner has been appointed as an LDC and Bachelor of Education, which the petitioner wishes to pursue or complete, has no co-relation with her work as an LDC; Bachelor of Education, in no manner will enhance petitioner's ability to perform her duties (of an LDC) more efficiently. 17. Having regard to the mandate of law, the petitioner cannot claim study leave as a matter of right. The petitioner's request cannot be acceded to even on the basis of the undertaking she has offered that she would not claim salary for the period of sanctioned leave and that her probation period be extended accordingly, because the foundational condition is not fulfilled -the qualification (B.Ed.) is not going to help her in discharge of her duties in any manner. 18. As an upshot of discussion foregoing, this Court does not find any substance in the writ petitions at hands, for which they are hereby dismissed. 19. The stay applications also stand disposed of accordingly.