Ritu Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 9576 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 9576 Raj
Judgement Date : 22 July, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ritu Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 July, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6008/2022

Ritu Yadav D/o Sh. Sube Singh Yadav W/o Anil Kumar Yadav, Aged About 32 Years, House No. 12, Gokul Village, District Udaipur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical Education (Group-I) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Dy. Secretary (Group-I), Department Of Medical Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Principal, Ravindra Nath Tagore Medical College, Udaipur.

4. Principal, Ananta Institute Of Medical Science And Research Centre, Udaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pramendra Bohra. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anamika Bishnoi for Ms. Vandana Bhansali.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

22/07/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against inaction of the respondents in granting permission to

attend NEET - PG course and granting study leave to the

petitioner and seeking direction to allow the petitioner to pursue

the study of NEET (PG) in radiology.

It is inter-alia indicated in the petition that petitioner is

serving as Senior Demonstrator in Pathology, after appearing for

NEET -PG, the petitioner was selected and was granted admission

in post graduation in Radiology. The petitioner sought study leave

(2 of 4) [CW-6008/2022]

from the respondents, however, the same has not been decided by

the respondents.

During pendency of the present writ petition, by order dated

12.05.2022, it was directed that candidature of the petitioner, for

lack of study leave, shall not be cancelled and the petitioner joined

the PG course.

A response to the petition has been filed inter-alia raising

several issues including the fact that the petitioner cannot claim as

of right to seek study leave and that the petitioner is seeking post

graduation in a subject different from where she is presently

working as Senior Demonstrator, which acquisition of higher

qualification will be of no use to the State and, therefore, the

application filed by the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the

respondents during pendency of the present petition on

09.05.2022 (Annex.R/2) requiring the petitioner to seek

extraordinary leave.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that

issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by order of

Dr. Sheikh Mohmmad Afzal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.:

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9331/2020, decided on 23.02.2021,

wherein, a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench, has

dealt with all the issues as sought to be raised in the reply

including the issue of the petitioner obtaining higher education in

a different branch and, therefore, the petition deserves to be

allowed.

Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the

submissions regarding lack of any right of the petitioner to get the

study leave and that the change in branch in seeking higher

(3 of 4) [CW-6008/2022]

education, does not entitle the petitioner to seek study leave and

she can seek EOL (Extraordinary Leave) only.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Sheikh Mohmmad

Afzal (supra) after noticing almost all the objections, which could

have been raised against grant of study leave to the candidates

therein, has inter-alia come to the following conclusion:-

"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.

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.

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.

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.

(4 of 4) [CW-6008/2022]

servant belongs. The said circular also runs contrary to amendment made by substituting exception in Clause (i) of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 112of RSR where different category of employees of medical department have been made eligible to get study leave for 36 months.

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.

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 been titled for benefit of study leave and their relieving, which was made subject to final outcome of this writ petition, is also made absolute.

The requisite order by the respondents may be passed within a period of six weeks, after receipt of copy of this order.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed."

The judgment above takes care of all the issues as sought to

be submitted/argued by the respondents.

The issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered

by the judgment in the case of Dr. Sheikh Mohmmad Afzal

(supra).

Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.

The order dated 09.05.2022 Annex.R/2 passed by the respondents

is quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to grant

benefit of study leave to the petitioner.