[Rajasthan Service Rules] Strong Reason Needed To Deny Extra-Ordinary Leave Of Employee Who Secured Admission In B. Ed. Course, Deposited Fees: HC

Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the petitioner serving as a clerk in the office of the District and Sessions Judge whose application for extra-ordinary leave of two years for pursuing B.Ed. was rejected.

Proviso to Rule 96 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 provides for provision of extra-ordinary leave for higher study for two years for such temporary/ permanent government servant who are not entitled to study leave under Rule 110 of the Rules.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga relied upon an earlier case to affirm that even though leave could not be sought as a matter of right, but where the aspirant had already deposited fee after being granted admission, the leave rejection had to be on a very strong reason since the authority also did not have arbitrary power to refuse granting of leave.

The petitioner, while serving as a clerk in the officer of District and Sessions judge wanted to pursue B.Ed. to improve her academic qualification. In this regard, she had already secured admission in a college and have also deposited her admission fee. To enroll in the course, she applied for an extra-ordinary leave of two years under Rule 96 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (“Rules”).

However, her application was rejected on the grounds that the said course did not relate to the efficiency of the petitioner's work and the same was not in the interest of the department.

It was argued by the counsel for the respondents that leave could not be claimed as a matter of right and it was at the discretion of the leave sanctioning authority to refuse to sanction leave in the interest of public service.

The Court observed that the petitioner's claim of extra-ordinary leave under Rule 96 was given a complete short shrift without assigning any valid reasons for its rejection. The Court referred to a single judge bench decision by the Rajasthan High Court in which it was held,

“So far as the submission made that the petitioners cannot seek leave as of right is concerned, the said aspect no doubt true, however, in the circumstances wherein the petitioners have cleared the admission test, and have been granted admission in the colleges, wherein they have deposited the fees, the rejection has to be on very strong and firm grounds as the authority also does not have arbitrary power to refuse grant of leave.”

In this background, the Court held that since the petitioner had already been granted admission and had also deposited admission fees, there was no reason why the benefit of Rule 96 could not be granted to her.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the authorities were directed to accept petitioner's leave application within one week.

Title: Hemlata Choudhary v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 329

Click Here To Read/Download Order