Delhi High Court
Praveen Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 August, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 6th August, 2012
+ W.P.(C) 4664/2012
PRAVEEN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.G.D.Bhandari, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.L.R.Khatana, Advocate for
Respondents No. 2 to 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CM No.9657/2012(for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to just all exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
+ W.P.(C) 4664/2012
1. Notice issued.
2. Mr. Khatana, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents
No. 2 to 5.
3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant
petition is taken up for disposal.
4. The petitioner has submitted an application for LL.B. Entrance
Examination, 2012 in the University of Delhi to be conducted on 10.06.2012
and the information to this effect has been given to the Joint Director, EIA-
Delhi (H.O.). Thereafter, on 25.06.2012 sought permission to join the LL.B.
Course, as the petitioner was selected to pursue the course mentioned above.
The petitioner had to appear on 06.07.2012 in Counseling Schedule-I and
thereafter, finally, he was selected by the Faculty of Law, University of
Delhi in the LL.B. Course. Thereafter, the petitioner sought permission to
attend the course, which has been denied by the respondents vide the
impugned order dated 03.07.2012 as under:-
"EIA/DEL/Admn(41)/2012
To
Shri Parveen Kumar,
Technical Officer,
Export Inspection Agency-Delhi (HO)
Sub:- Permission to join L.L.B. Course (2012) at Delhi
University.
Sir,
Your request for persuing the course of L.L.B.
(2012) at Delhi University has not been acceded by the
Competent Authority.
Yours faithfully,
(M.K.Singh)
Deputy Director"
5. The petitioner, being aggrieved, submitted that the order passed by the
respondent is without application of mind and not a reasoned order.
6. Mr.L.R.Khatana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents
No. 2 to 5 has produced the file regarding the decision taken on the
permission, being sought, by the petitioner.
7. In the note dated 02.07.2012, it is stated that:-
"Although the instructions in such matters are that
permissions may be given to the officials who wish to
pursue the educational courses outside office hours.
However, looking at the current scenario of the
organization where there are wide scale shortages of
manpower and with EIC/EIAs operating at about 40% of
the sanctioned strength it is becoming imperative that the
manpower be deployed to clear backlog of the work even
on closed days like Saturday and Sunday. This creates a
situation of contention and collidance that where an
employee who has been granted permission to pursue the
course may in all likelihood in his pursuit to studies
refuse to take such initiatives."
8. I note that it is further recorded that:-
"on 31 May 2012 he would be appearing in a entrance
examination to be conducted on 10 June 2012 till the
applicant applied again on 25 June 2012 for admission
and thereafter the file was moved on 26 June 2012 that
too only forwarding the request without even attempting
to examine the matter."
9. This note indicates that the decision was taken by the respondents in a
very hasty manner and they have not applied the mind and rejected the
permission of the petitioner in just one line.
10. Moreover, the timing of the course is from 6.15 Pm to 9.15 Pm, i.e.
after the Office Hours.
11. Ordinarily, there can be no objection to the pursuit of knowledge by
the Government Servant in their leisure hours, but this may be subject to the
condition that such pursuit does in no way detract from their efficiency.
12. This Course would not a burden on the respondent as it is the wish of
the petitioner to enhance her educational qualification at her own cost and
without causing any damage to the respondents.
13. The counsel for the petitioner on instruction has stated that petitioner
has never been deployed to clear backlog even on holidays like Saturday and
Sunday and not even after office hours on overtime.
14. I am, therefore, of the opinion that giving permission to the petitioner
to join the course would not suffer the work of the respondents as he is going
to join the Course, which starts after the office hours.
15. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 03.07.2012 is set
aside and the instant petition stands disposed of.
16. No orders as to costs.
CM No.9658/2012(for stay)
1. With the disposal of the petition itself, this application has become
infructuous.
2. Accordingly, the same is disposed of being infructuous.
3. A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.
SURESH KAIT, J.
AUGUST 06, 2012
sb/jg
