ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for seeking a direction to grant them study leave to undergo their Post-Graduate Medical Course on the seats allotted to them in NEET PG Counselling, 2020. 2. The petitioners further pray that the respondents need to be directed to adhere to the provisions of Rule 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short “the RSR”) and to grant study leave to the petitioners and further to relieve them from the place of posting to join PG Course. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are Senior Demonstrators working in Government Medical Colleges in State of Rajasthan and further, the petitioner No. 3 is an Assistant Professor, also working as per the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (for short “the Rules of 1962”). 4. The petitioners have pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner No. 1 was allotted seat of MD Pediatrics at JLN Medical College, Ajmer in the second round of state counselling, the petitioner No. 2 was allotted MD General Medicine at RNT Medical College, Udaipur in the second round of state counselling and the petitioner No. 3 appeared in All India Counselling, second round and allotted MD Anesthesiology at RNT Medical College, Udaipur. 5. The petitioners have pleaded in the writ petition that after their admission in PG Course, they applied for study leave to pursue their course and as such, the respondents did not take any action on the representation submitted by the petitioners to grant study leave and further, did not relieve them to join the course and as such, they filed the writ petition before this Court. 6. This Court, vide order dated 3rd September, 2020, after hearing learned counsel for both the sides, gave direction to the respondents to relieve the petitioners and permit them to join the allotted PG Course and the same order was subject to final outcome of the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners-Mr. Aslam Khan submitted that the Finance Department (Rules Division), Government of Rajasthan, by Notification dated 31st July, 2020, has made amendment in Rule 112 of RSR and existing exception of Clause (ii) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 112 of RSR, was substituted. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners-Mr. Aslam Khan submitted that the Finance Department (Rules Division), Government of Rajasthan, by Notification dated 31st July, 2020, has made amendment in Rule 112 of RSR and existing exception of Clause (ii) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 112 of RSR, was substituted. 8. Learned counsel submitted that as per the amendment made by the State Government, the petitioners are entitled for study leave, as the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are working as Senior Demonstrator and the petitioner No. 3 is working as Assistant Professor. 9. Learned counsel submitted that the scope of amendment in Rule 112 of RSR has been considered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9113/2020 (Dr. Pooja Mathur and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others) along with other connected writ petitions. 10. Learned counsel submits that case of the present petitioners is also required to be governed by the same principle, which has already been decided by this Court. 11. Learned counsel Mr. Harshal Tholia, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the petitioners are working as Senior Demonstrator and Assistant Professor, however, their admission in Post-Graduate Medical Course is not in the same stream/specialty. 12. Learned counsel submitted that since, the petitioners are now changing their stream and as such, after completing the course, their acquisition of knowledge/skill will be of no use to the State Government and as such, benefit of study leave may not be granted to the petitioners. 13. Learned counsel further submitted that the issue with regard to grant of study leave to Senior Demonstrator, has been considered by the Department of Medical Education (Group-I) and an order dated 17th September, 2020 has been issued, whereby it has been considered that if Senior Demonstrators participate in the NEET PG Examination and if they change the stream, the study leave may not be granted to them and only extra-ordinary leave may be granted to such candidates. 14. Learned counsel submitted that the provision contained in Rule 112 of RSR, makes it very clear that if a candidate pursues the course of study and grant of study leave is in the interest of the working of the Department or the service, to which government servant belongs then only the study leave can be granted to government servant. 15. Learned counsel submitted that the provision contained in Rule 112 of RSR, makes it very clear that if a candidate pursues the course of study and grant of study leave is in the interest of the working of the Department or the service, to which government servant belongs then only the study leave can be granted to government servant. 15. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case, the petitioners, if granted study leave, the same cannot be in the interest of working of the Department or service to which the petitioners belong and as such, the petitioners do not fulfill the basic ingredients of condition for grant of study leave, as contained in main provision of Rule 112 of RSR. 16. Learned counsel further submitted that the relief sought by the petitioners in the present writ petition to grant them study leave and other consequential benefits, like full salary, etc. may not be granted and the Department has considered the entire facts of the present case and after examining it, it has been decided that the petitioners’ entitlement for grant of study leave, is not made out. 17. Learned counsel further submitted that as per provisions contained in the Rules of 1962, the Senior Demonstrators are appointed in a particular specialty, like specialty of forensic medicine and dental surgery and if any of the petitioners is not pursuing the Post-graduation in these particular stream, no benefit will be available to the State Government after completion of course by the petitioners/candidates. 18. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners, after acquiring the qualification of Post-graduation, may not only leave the government job but also the money spent on them in granting higher education, will be a sheer wastage for the State Government and burden on the public exchequer. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amendment, which has been brought by the State Government, does not make any distinction between the persons, who are to be granted study leave and all the Medical Officers or Senior Demonstrators have been made eligible to get 36 months of study leave for acquiring degree of Post-graduation/Super-specialty Course. 20. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amendment, which has been brought by the State Government, does not make any distinction between the persons, who are to be granted study leave and all the Medical Officers or Senior Demonstrators have been made eligible to get 36 months of study leave for acquiring degree of Post-graduation/Super-specialty Course. 20. Learned counsel submitted that even the said amendment takes note of the fact that the persons, who are already on study leave, will also be entitled for enhanced period of study leave for the remainder period of study leave, as amended by the State Government. 21. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners, after seeking admission in Post-graduation Course, have also given undertaking to serve the State Government for five years and further, they will also execute a bond of Rs. 25,00,000/- to pay to the Govt. in case the petitioners leave the course or the job, after completing the Post-graduation. 22. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 23. It would be appropriate to quote clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 112 of RSR along with Exception and Notification dated 31st July, 2020, which read as under:- “Rule 112: Condition for grant of Study Leave: (1) Study leave shall be granted to enable a Government servant:- (i) to pursue a course of study or investigation of a scientific or technical nature either in India or outside India provided that it is certified by the authority competent to sanction that the grant of study leave will be in the interest of the working of the department or the service to which the Government servant belongs. (ii) The total period of study leave during the entire period of service of a Government servant shall not be more than 24 months. It may be taken in one spell or more than one spell. Study leave may be combined with other kinds of leave, but in no case shall the grant of this leave in combination with leave, other than extra-ordinary leave, involve a total absence of more than twenty-eight months from the regular duties of the Government servant. Exception: Study leave to the Medical Officer/Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari shall be admissible for 36 months for acquiring degree of post graduation. Exception: Study leave to the Medical Officer/Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari shall be admissible for 36 months for acquiring degree of post graduation. Those Medical Officers/ Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari who are already on study leave shall also be entitled for enhanced period of study leave to the extent of remaining period of study leave. [Substituted vide F.D. Notification No. F. 1(3) FD/Rules/2002, dated 15.2.2017, with immediate effect] “No. F. 1(3) FD/Rules/2002 Jaipur, Dated: 31.07.2020 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Rajasthan hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, namely: 1. Short title and commencement: (1) These rules may be called The Rajasthan Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2020. (2) They shall come into force with immediate effect. 2. Amendment of Rule 112 - The existing exception of clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 shall be substituted by the following, namely: “Exception: Study leave to the Medical Officer/Medical Officer (Dental)/Ayurved Medical Officer/Unani Medical Officer/Homeopathy Medical Officer/Teachers of Medical Education (Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor/Sr. Demonstrator MBBS/BDS Degree holder) shall be admissible for 36 months for acquiring degree of post graduation/super specialty course. Those Medical Officers/Medical Officers (Dental) Ayurved Medical Officers/Unani Medical Officers/Homeopathy Medical Officers/ Teachers of Medical Education (Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor/Sr. Demonstrator MBBS/BDS Degree holder) who are already on study leave shall also be entitled for enhanced period of study leave to the extent of remaining period of study leave.” This Court finds that in the case of Dr. Pooja Mathur and Others (supra), this Court has considered the Notification dated 31st July, 2020 and the relevant paras of the said judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference: “I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully. This Court finds that the petitioners are not claiming any benefit of seat as “in-service” candidate or allotment of bonus marks to them for the purpose of admission. This Court further finds that the petitioners are working as Medical Officer in the service of the State Government and if the petitioners have been granted admission in PG courses, either as “non-service” candidate or as “in-service” candidate (Petitioner No. 2 - Dr. Tarun Kumar, petitioner No. 5 - Dr. This Court further finds that the petitioners are working as Medical Officer in the service of the State Government and if the petitioners have been granted admission in PG courses, either as “non-service” candidate or as “in-service” candidate (Petitioner No. 2 - Dr. Tarun Kumar, petitioner No. 5 - Dr. Ramveer Patel) the issue is with regard to relieving the petitioners for joining the said course. This Court finds that the respondent - State Government should not create any obstruction in relieving the petitioners, if already not relieved to pursue the higher studies. There is legal impediment in this regard. This Court finds that the candidates/petitioners are also required to execute a bond before the Authorities that they will not leave the course and further, they will render their services after completing the course. This Court finds that category of the petitioners, for the purpose of pursuing higher studies, will not make any difference and as such, the respondent-State Authorities are required to relieve the petitioners to join their respective courses. The prayer of the petitioners to grant them study leave is required to be looked into as per the amendment, which the State Government itself has made on 31st July, 2020. The exception, which has been added to Rule 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, makes it very clear that those Medical Officers, who are working in the State Government, including the Medical Officer (Dental), Ayurved Medical Officer, Unani Medical Officer, Homeopathy Medical Officer, Teachers of Medical Education, are entitled for 36 months’ study leave for doing their PG/super-speciality courses. This Court finds that if the petitioners have been rendering their services in the State Government as Medical Officer, the State Authorities are required to consider them entitled for the grant of study leave, as per the amendment, which itself has been made by the State Government. This Court further finds that even if the petitioners are treated as “non-service category” candidates, once they are working in the State Government, entitlement emanates from the amendment, which has been inserted by the State Government. This Court, considering the amendment brought into Rajasthan Service Rules and allotment of seats to the petitioners, either in “non-service category” or “in-service category” finds that the petitioners are required to be relieved, if they have already not been relieved from their respective place of posting, enabling them to join the respective courses. This Court, considering the amendment brought into Rajasthan Service Rules and allotment of seats to the petitioners, either in “non-service category” or “in-service category” finds that the petitioners are required to be relieved, if they have already not been relieved from their respective place of posting, enabling them to join the respective courses. This Court also finds that the respondents are always at liberty to collect the relevant information about working of the petitioners as “in-service” candidates and they may be given adequate time to produce the relevant details from the competent authority about their working in the rural areas and the same can be submitted by them. This Court further holds that the petitioners are entitled for grant of study leave, as per the exception added to Rule 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed.” 24. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the basic ingredients of Rule 112 of RSR prescribing conditions for grant of study leave is not fulfilled by the petitioners, this Court finds that the State Government itself has made an exception by permitting grant of study leave for a period of 36 months and as such, the State Government cannot be permitted to say before this Court that the persons, who will pursue the Post-graduation Course, will not be entitled for grant of study leave. 25. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the Department/Authority, who is competent to sanction the grant of study leave, has to see that study leave will be in the interest of working of the Department or the service, to which the government servant belongs, this Court finds that if the candidate/petitioner is acquiring higher education/ Post-graduation and he/she has already been working in the State Government and later on also, he/she undertakes to work in the Government by giving undertaking and executing bond, it cannot be presumed that study leave, granted to such candidate, will not be in the interest of the Department or the Government. 26. 26. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the candidate, if appointed in a particular stream, later on joins in Post-graduation in other stream and as such, the change of stream cannot be in benefit of the State, as when such candidate reverts back, he is appointed on the same post, this Court finds that if the Senior Demonstrator or Assistant Professor acquires higher education/Post-graduation in Medical Science, his/her study or knowledge cannot go waste and the same can always be used by the Government, considering the higher education acquired by such candidate. 27. The circular dated 17th September, 2020, issued by the respondents, overlooks Rule 112 of RSR where government servant can get study leave if the course of study is in the interest of the working of government or to service which govt. servant belongs. The said circular also runs contrary to amendment made by substituting exception in Clause (i) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 112 of RSR where different category of employees of medical department have been made eligible to get study leave for 36 months. 28. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have been granted admission prior to amendment in Rule 112 of RSR brought into force on 31st July, 2020 and as such, the benefit may not be extended to the petitioners, suffice it to say that the amendment, which has been brought by the State Government for a period of study leave, even takes care of the persons, who are already on study leave and they have been given benefit for remainder period left out of 36 months of study period. 29. This Court, accordingly, finds that the respondents have wrongly denied benefit of study leave to the petitioners and as such, the petitioners are entitled for study leave, as per the Notification dated 31st July, 2020. The petitioners would be entitled for benefit of study leave and their relieving, which was made subject to final outcome of this writ petition, is also made absolute. 30. The requisite order by the respondents may be passed within a period of six weeks, after receipt of copy of this order. 31. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.