SPA/383/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 3768 UK

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL

                       SRI JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
                                   AND
                        SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE, J.

23RD NOVEMBER, 2022 IA DELAY CONDONATION APPLIATION NO. 2 OF 2022 IN SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2022 Between:

State of Uttarakhand and others.       ......Appellants

and

Dr. Jyoti Raj Prasad                                     ....Respondent


Counsel for the appellants       :   Mr.    Anil   Kumar    Bisht, learned

Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

Counsel for the respondent : None.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following

JUDGMENT : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)

The present Special Appeal is directed against the

judgment dated 17.11.2021, rendered by the learned Single

Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2586 of 2019 preferred by

the respondent-writ petitioner.

2. The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ

petition, and issued a writ of mandamus in favour of the

respondent-writ petitioner and against the appellant to grant

study leave to the respondent-writ petitioner for the period

from 16.08.2016 to 30.04.2017 with continuity of service

and to pay all consequential benefits to the respondent-writ petitioner, as admissible to her as per law along with the

arrears of salary, selection grade, pay fixation, etc. after

grant of study leave.

3. The present Special Appeal is delayed by 169

days. We are not inclined to condone the delay, as even on

merits, we find that the present Special Appeal preferred by

the appellant-Department is uncalled for and not justified.

4. After serving as an Assistant Teacher,

Government Primary School since 2007, respondent-writ

petitioner was posted as an Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade

(Science) at G.I.C., Halson Korar in 2010. While serving in

that position, she applied for Research Degree Entrance Test

2011-12 to be conducted by the Kumaun University, Nainital

for undertaking the Ph.D. Programme. The respondent-writ

petitioner was, at that stage, granted leave of 72 days to be

able to pursue her course in the subject 'ENTOMOLOGY'

under the Research Director Dr. Deepika Goswami (Zoology

Department) for completing the Pre-Ph.D. course. The

Research Degree Committee (Zoology) of the Kumaun

University accepted the research application of the

respondent-writ petitioner on the topic "Biodiversity of

earthworms and their role in nutrient turnover in cultivated

and mixed forest soils at Kainchi (Uttarakhand)". The

respondent-writ petitioner then applied for further study

leave on 04.08.2016 from 16.08.2016 to 30.04.2017 to be

able to complete her research work. However, her

application was not actioned. She then proceeded on study

leave. The respondent-writ petitioner reported back for

duty at Government Inter College, Halson Korar on

01.05.2017. During the period that she remained on leave

to pursue her course, the respondent-writ petitioner was not

paid her salary and other dues, and consequently, she

preferred the writ petition.

5. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition

while observing that the ground for rejection of her study

leave could not be justified as she was earlier granted leave

for 72 days to pursue her Pre-Ph.D. course in the year 2012.

To turn around and thereafter, claim that the said course

was of no relevance to her in discharge of her duties as a

teacher in Science was rejected, and in our view, rightly so.

6. Being a Science teacher, it could not be said that

acquisition of a higher degree or undertaking of research

work by the respondent-writ petitioner would have no

bearing on her performance as a Science teacher. It is

unfortunate that the approach demonstrated by government

departments in such cases seeks to suppress endeavours by

serving government teachers to acquire higher education /

qualification and to undertake research work in their

respective fields. In fact, one expects the Government to

encourage its teachers to acquire higher qualification only

and to undertake research work in their respective fields, as

that is only likely to enrich the education that they impart to

their students.

7. In the light of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to

interfere with the impugned judgment. The Appeal is,

accordingly, dismissed.

8. In sequel thereto, pending application, if any, also

stands dismissed.

________________ VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.

____________ R.C. KHULBE, J.

Dt: 23rd November, 2022 Rathour