JUDGMENT : 1. Defect/s pointed out by the Office is/are waived 2. Appellant has preferred this Special Appeal (Writ) aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Single Judge on the ground that the learned Single Judge has wrongly interpreted the cut off date i.e. 30.09.2021 for the purpose of counting the period of completion of probation. 3. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the record and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. The learned Single Judge has decided the Writ Petition by observing that:- "This Court finds that the petitioners who have not completed the probation period of one year upto 30.09.2021, have been rendered ineligible or dis-entitled for grant of study leave, as the State Government has decided to fix the cut off date as30.09.2021. This Court finds that the State Government has to fix a date by keeping the relevant consideration in mind for counting the one year of probation period and in the present facts of the case, if the State Government has taken 30.09.2021 as the cut off date, no fault can be found with such decision. This Court finds that completion of probation period by different in-service Doctors may vary from time to time as in-service Doctors are appointed by the State Government on different dates by issuing different orders. The completion of one year of probation period will ultimately come to an end on a particular date and such a date for different candidates, cannot be a shifting date for judging the eligibility for the purpose of study leave. This Court finds that if for the purpose of counting the experience of 1/2/3 years, for the purpose of grant of bonus marks, date has been fixed by the State Government as30.09.2021 and all those Doctors who have gained experience upto 30.09.2021, then such in-service Doctors are considered for grant of bonus marks. The State Government accordingly thought it proper that if the experience of in-service Doctors is counted upto 30.09.2021, the candidates who have completed their one year of probation upto 30.09.2021, have accordingly been considered for the purpose of grant of study leave. The State Government accordingly thought it proper that if the experience of in-service Doctors is counted upto 30.09.2021, the candidates who have completed their one year of probation upto 30.09.2021, have accordingly been considered for the purpose of grant of study leave. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Division Bench has already held that the reserved vacancies on account of availing study leave by the in- service Doctors, need to be kept in mind by the State Government and as such they are required to make appointments, suffice it to say by this Court that creation of posts by the State Government or filling it by regular method or by urgent temporary appointment, is the sole prerogative of the State Government which they are required to do. This Court while considering the question of grant of NOC and study leave, cannot direct the State Government that it should leave the vacancies or they should allow the in- service Doctors immediately to join the higher studies. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that scarcity of Doctors or the situation of COVID-19 are not valid reasons for denying study leave, this Court finds that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dr. Kamaldeep Khatri (supra), has already dealt with the issue and found that if the State Government has found the shortage of Doctors in the rural areas, denial of study leave will not be a unreasonable decision of the State Government. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners who have their meritorious claim in admission and if they are not permitted to get No Objection Certificate and further not granted study leave, they will be forced to resign from their service, this Court finds that if the petitioners are entitled for any other leave like extraordinary leaves, etc., it is always open for the candidate whether he wants to go for higher studies or still wants to continue with the job. This Court finds substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents that the State Government has taken a conscious decision this year to keep the cut off date of30.09.2021 by having a nexus with regard to the experience of in-service Doctors for all other purposes and as such this Court does not find any fault or error in the decision taken by the State Government. Accordingly, these writ petitions being devoid of force are dismissed." 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant has not completed his period of probation before the cut off date i.e. 30.09.2021. Hence he is rightly found to be ineligible. 6. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Single Judge. Hence, this Special Appeal (Writ) stands dismissed. Stay application also stands disposed of.