Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vishal Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:15367) on 21 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:15367]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6186/2024
Vishal Sharma S/o Late Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About
26 Years, Resident Of Inside Jodhpuriya Gate, Sojat City, District
Pali (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Medical Health And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director (Non Gazetted), Medical And Health
Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Medical And Health Services, Zone
Jodhpur, Jodhpur.
4. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Sirohi.
5. The Principal Medical Officer, District Hospital Shivganj,
District Sirohi.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19060/2023
Hanuwant Singh S/o Late Shrikundan Singh, Aged About 32
Years, By Caste Rajpurohit, Resident Of Mandpuriya, Tehsil
Rohat, District Pali (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Medical And Health
And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Pali.
4. The District Reproduction And Child Health Officer, Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Muskan Jangid for Mr. Rishabh
Tayal.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order(Oral)
21/03/2025
1. Vide this common order, the aforesaid two petitions are
being disposed of together as not only the facts involved are
similar, but even the issue therein is akin.
2. Illustratively, for the sake of brevity, recitals are being taken
from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6186/2024. The petitioner herein
seeks directions to the respondents to grant him the benefit of
[2025:RJ-JD:15367] (2 of 4) [CW-6186/2024]
study leave for the GNM training course of the year 2022-2023
attended by him, along with all consequential benefits.
3. Heard
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners state
that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by a judgment
rendered by a Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case titled
Himmat Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.17843/2015) decided on 30.11.2022,
wherein it has been held as under :-
"I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the material available on record.
This Court deems it proper to quote Rule 112 of the Rajathan
Service Rules, 1951 as under :-
"112. Condition for grant of Study leave. -- (I) Study
leave shall be granted to enable a 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. The authority competent
to grant study leave shall ensure that it is not granted
to a Government servant with such frequency work or
to cause cadre difficulties owing to his as to remove
him from contact with his regular absence on leave. A
period of 12 months at one time should ordinarily be
regarded as a suitable maximum and should not be
exceeded save for exceptional reasons.
(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.
(2) Study Leave is extra leave on half pay and leave
salary during such leave shall be regulated in
accordance with rule 97(2).
(Emphasis supplied.)
[2025:RJ-JD:15367] (3 of 4) [CW-6186/2024]
This Court on bare perusal of the Rule 112 of the Rajasthan
Service Rules, 1951 finds that the study leave is granted to
Government servant to enable him to pursue the course of study and
grant of study leave should be in the interest of working of the
Department or the service to which Government Servant belongs.
This Court finds that if the study leave is in the interest of the
working of the Department, then it cannot be said that the person,
who is in Class-IV cadre and acquires qualification of GNM, the
same would not be in the interest of working of the Department.
The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the
Rule 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 also provides a
condition that if the Government Servant wants study leave, it should
be in the interest of the service to which Government servant
belongs, this Court finds that if the Rule making authority has clearly
demarcated two situations by giving benefit of study leave in the
interest of the working of the Department as well as in the interest of
service to which Government servant belongs plain and purposeful
interpretation has to be made of such Rule.
The rule making authority has kept in mind that it is the
working of the Department, which is benefited by virtue of acquiring
higher qualification by the employee and as such the employee
belonging to cadre of Class-IV cannot be presumed, to be not
acquiring such course of study, which would ultimately not be in the
interest of working of the Department.
This Court had occasion to consider the similar issue in the
case of Dr. Sheikh Mohmmad Afzal (supra) and the relevant portion
of the order is quoted hereunder:
"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 submission of learned counsel for the respondents that
the benefit, which was granted to the other candidates has been
withdrawn or wrong orders if has been passed in past will not give
right to the petitioners to claim benefit of study leave, this Court
finds that the Rule making Authority once has provided in Rule 112
of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 making a person entitled for
grant of study leave in the interest of the working of the Department,
such entitlement cannot be denied to the Government Servant.
This Court accordingly finds that the order dated 25.08.2015,
has not been passed by the respondents in legal and proper manner
and accordingly, the same is set aside. The petitioners are held
entitled for grant of study leave and they will also be entitled for the
consequential reliefs, which flow from granting of study leave. The
compliance of this order will be made within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
[2025:RJ-JD:15367] (4 of 4) [CW-6186/2024]
The present writ petition stands allowed, accordingly."
5. On a Court query, counsel for the respondents does not
controvert that the case of the petitioners is similar to the one
who was party in the judgment ibid, but submits that he is unable
to give his consent as he does not have the instructions for the
same.
4. Be that as it may, having perused the judgment myself, I am
of the view that case of the petitioner is covered on all four
squares and I see no reason why the benefit of the judgment
relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner be not given.
5. As an upshot, the instant petitions are allowed in the same
terms as judgment ibid. All pending application(s), if any, stand
disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
126-/Jitender//-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
