Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sita Ram Kumawat vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 20 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:37281]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14108/2025
Sita Ram Kumawat S/o Kaisa Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Village Asanpur, Tehsil Kuchaman City, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Energy, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chairman, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut
Bhawan, Panchsheel Nagar, Makarwali Road, Ajmer,
Rajasthan.
3. Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Khinwsar, Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Singhal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mrigraj Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
20/08/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to
respondent No.3 - Assistant Engineer, to grant extraordinary leave
to the petitioner for pursuing further studies.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is employed with the
respondents and made an application dated 16.05.2025 seeking
permission from the respondent authorities for appearance in the
entrance examination to pursue the course of Craft Instructor
Training Scheme (CITS) and the last date for such application was
28.05.2025, which was later extended up to 04.06.2025. The
respondents have not taken any decision on the application filed
by the petitioner for grant of permission to submit the application
[2025:RJ-JD:37281] (2 of 5) [CW-14108/2025]
for the entrance examination for further studies of the CITS
course. When no decision was taken, the petitioner made an
application without permission and he was successful in the
entrance examination by securing good marks and became
entitled to join the course for which he appeared. Further, he
made another application dated 26.06.2025 after the declaration
of the results for the grant of extraordinary leave to pursue his
further studies. No action has been taken on such representation
also; hence, the present writ petition.
3. The case of the respondents is that the application dated
16.05.2025 was made just eight days before the last date for
making an application for the entrance examination. The said
application is silent with regard to the schedule of the
examination, which could have indicated the urgency of the
decision on the application made by the petitioner. Without giving
any reasonable time and without indicating the urgency in the
application for taking a decision, the petitioner cannot move
directly with the application for participating in the entrance
examination. The respondents also claimed that the Department
in which the petitioner is working is an essential service and there
is a shortage of staff and he is employed in an area where five
villages are required to be supervised and there is no other
employee to supplement him. As such, they cannot spare
employee for such a long period for pursuing further studies. It is
also stated that consideration of the second application would
arise only in the case where permission is granted for participating
in the entrance examination, which is not done in the present
[2025:RJ-JD:37281] (3 of 5) [CW-14108/2025]
case. Therefore, there cannot be any mandamus to grant
extraordinary leave.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
made an application for permission; however, such application was
not decided and in the said circumstances, the petitioner made a
direct application without permission and was successful in the
said examination by securing good marks so that he can pursue
his further studies. It is also contended that the petitioner, at
least, can be permitted to pursue his education on extraordinary
leave without study leave. As such, he seeks the indulgence of this
Court to pass appropriate directions for granting extraordinary
leave.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions,
submits that as per the instructions given by the respondent
authority, the petitioner was employed in a place where he was
required to supervise five villages and there is no other person to
supplement him and there is a shortage of employees; therefore,
they cannot spare the petitioner. He also contended that the
application filed by the petitioner lacks the schedule of the
examination, so that the authority taking the decision could be
expected to take an early decision and there was no reasonable
time granted to the authority to take such a decision. The
petitioner, without permission, went forward by making an
application. The grant of such leave would arise only if his process
is in accordance with the procedure.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied
upon the order dated 05.11.2024 of the Co-ordinate Bench of this
[2025:RJ-JD:37281] (4 of 5) [CW-14108/2025]
Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15446/2024 titled as
'Hemlata Choudhary Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.',
wherein the challenge was made to the rejection of permission to
pursue the B.Ed. course by a clerk who was working in the District
Judiciary. The facts in the present case are different for the reason
that there was no decision from the respondents on account of
insufficient time to take a decision and the facts indicating the
urgency of the decision. If the decision had been taken, this Court
would have examined the rightfulness of the decision. In the
present case, when no decision has been taken, the Court lacks
occasion to examine the decision. Therefore, the said decision is
inappropriate. Further, the service of the petitioner in the
aforementioned case is different from the service of the petitioner
in the present case. In the present case, the petitioner is in
essential services. Therefore, the judgment on which the
petitioner relied is not applicable.
8. In the present case, as rightly contended by learned counsel
for the respondents, the application dated 16.05.2025 does not
indicate the urgency of the decision. Further, this application was
made only eight days before the last date of application for
participating in the entrance examination. Without the permission
of the respondent authorities, the petitioner is not entitled to
participate in the examination. The petitioner participated in the
examination and might have succeeded by getting a high rank so
that he could get admission in the CITS course. When permission
is not granted, he is not entitled to ask for the grant of
extraordinary leave. Grant of extraordinary leave would only arise
when permission is given to pursue further education. Further, this
[2025:RJ-JD:37281] (5 of 5) [CW-14108/2025]
Court would have taken a sympathetic view, ignoring the
technicalities, if the respondents were able to spare the petitioner,
but as per the instructions of the respondents, they cannot spare
the petitioner, who is working in an essential service. When the
respondents said that they cannot spare the petitioner on account
of a shortage of staff, this Court cannot supplement the decision
and direct the respondents to relieve the petitioner to participate
in higher studies. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere
in the present writ petition.
9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the present writ petition is
dismissed.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
238s-PoonamS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
