The High Court · 2025

1. The Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, Rep., by its Registrar (Admn), Hyderabad.

2. The Chief Judge, City Civil Court. Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ. i) Declare the action of the Respondents in issuing the impugned order dated.02 .08.2025 communicated on 06.08.2025 rejecting the request for extraordinary leave to pursue regular LLB Course for the academic year 2025-2028, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, bereft of any material reasoning and consequently, set-aside the proceedings vide Roc. No.l 25512025-C-3, dated.02.08.2025 communicated on 06.08.2025, and ii) Declare that the Petitioner herein is eligible for grant of extraordinary leave to pursue her regular LLB Course for the academic year 2025-2028, and iii) Consequently, direct the Respondents to accept the request of the Petitioner for grant of extraordinary leave to pursue regular LLB Course for the academic year 2025- 2028. l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rr,ay be pleased to suspend the proceedings No.1255/2025-C-3, dated.02.08.2025 with a further direction to the Respondents to accept the request of the Petitioner herein for grant of extraordinary leave to pursue regular three (3) year LL.B Course for the academrc year 2025- 2028 Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM Counsel for the Respondents : SRI VIVEK JAIN The Court made the following ORDER + 4 * , 4 * * e , * THE HOfiOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY THE }IONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO Writ Petition No"24561 af 2A25 QBDIEB: @er Llon'ble Sn..Iustice P.SAM KOSIty) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the Court for issualce of a Writ, order or direction ald more particularlv one in the nature of Wit of Manriamus'. (i) to deciare the action of respondents in issuing the impugned order dated 02.08.2025 communicated on 06.08.2O25 rejecting the reqLlest for extraorCinaryu leave to pursue regular L.L.B. Course for the Academic Year 2025-2028, as wholly il1egal, arbitrar5r, bereft of any material reasoning arld consequentiy to set aside the proceedings dated A2.CB.2O2-> vide ROC.No.1255l2O25-C-3, cotrmunicated to the petitioner on 06.O8.2025 {for short, 'the impugned order'l; (ii) to declare that the petitioner herein is eligible lbr qrant of extraordinary leave to pursue her regular L.L.B. Course for the Acadernic Year 2025-2028; and consequently, (iii) to direct the respondents to accept the request of petitioner for grant of extraordinary leave to pursue regular L.L.B. Course for the Academrc \ear 2025-2028.

2. Heard Mr. Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Vivek Jain, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the High Court for the State of Telangala, for the respondents

3. Petitioner herern was appointed as Junior Assrstant under the respondcnt on O2.05.20 18. In due course of time , petitioner has compieted her probation period. Thereafter, petition€r applied for the Common Unir.crsitv Entrance Test [CUET (PG)-2025] through the National Testing Agencl,to pursue the Three-Year LL B. Course in the Academic Session 2025-28. The petitioner also took permission from the responderlts to appllr and to appear for the said e>:a-rnination w,hich \\,AS granted t,-v the respondents. Thereafter. the petitioner participated in the above entrance examination and secured a score of lBO out of 300 marks. Basing on the said score. the petitioncr was given an ofl'er of aclmission at Banaras Hindu Univelsity, Varanasi.

4. it is here ar this juncture that the petitioner had applied to respondent Nc,.1 through respondent No.2 vide lette!- dated

09.06.2025 for rlrant cf permission to pursue Three-Year LL.B. Course on regular ba:;is lor the Academic Year 2025-'28. Hou'ever, the resporrdent No.l. r,ide proceedings in ROC.No.1255 12O25-C-3, dated

02.O8.2025, rejected the request of petitioner to pursue the aforementioired course -!!-.-_'

5. On the previous date of hearing, this Bench had instructed the learned Standing Counsel fcr the respondents to make available the reason under which respondent No.1 had rejected the request letter of the peritioner. The reason for calling lor the said information w.as that the order passed by respondent No.l not being a speaking order, neithcr the said order reflected any reasons for i-ejecting the request of the petitioner to pursue the Three-Year LL.B. Course.

6. To-day, Mr. Vivek Jain, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Hish Court lor the State of Telangana, appearing lor the respondents, has produced the correspondence received from the City Civil Court, H,yderabad, addressed by the Chief Judge, City Civll Court, Hyderabad respondent No.1 herein, vide proceedings No.CCL- HYD/AW/El /3086,2025, dated 12.06.2A25, rvhile fonr,arding the ieave application of the petitioner. In the said letter itself, the learned Chiel Judge, City Civil Court, in very categorica,l terms had mentioned \ that due to severe dearth of Junior Assistants in the unit, granting permission to the petitioner to pursue Three-Year Li-.B. Decree Course on regular basis r,r,ou1d cause hindrance to the regula-r office work. He lurther stated that. he would not recommend the case of the petitioner for grant ol study ieave to the petitioner. Basing on the said inlormation and recommendation of the Chief Judge, Citv Civil Court, \ the respondent l.lo. 1 rejected the request of the petitioner vide the impugned order.

7. Aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed b-v thc' petiticner.

8. So far as grant of extraordinarv study leave i-s concerned, thrs Bench is of the opinion that it is alu ays rvithin the domain of the emplol,er to decide u'hether an emp1ol'ee can be granted studl' leave o;- not. Granting of permission to study and grant of studv leave for undertaking a c()u!:se on regular basis are entirell' dilferent in nature. In the former situation, the r.r-ork mav not get h.rmpered as even though permissirn has been granted the employee r.r'ould still continue to discharge his / l-rer duty and takes leave only udten examinations are held and not otheruise. Whereas, in the latter siluation, the entire nature of duties zLncl table assigned to the said e.mployee rematns vacant for the eltire period during which the employee undertakes the co urse 7i educa tion rn'hich couid be three years, and at times even more.

9. In a judiciai establishment, particularly these days when there is restriction so far as appointment and lresh recruitment aie concerned, dispensing rvith al employee rvith the existing strength and lvith the i i n Page 5 cf 6 mounting pressure of work in the judicial establishment particularly in the establishments at the District level, it becomes e\,,en more difficuit to dispense with an employee for a considerabie long period of time. lvhich in the instant case is minimum period of three l-ears

10. in the opinion of this Bench, it is the empiover who is the besr judge to decide whether it can grant permission to an employee for avaiiing stlrdi' leave or not, ald if the employer refuses to recommend the case of an employee by making an obsen,ation that there is ser,ere dearth of staff in his unit. there is no reason to doubt the averments so made b_i' the employer AS regards grant of permission to the petitioner to avail extraordinar3r study leave for so long a period.

11. For ail the aforesaid reasons, this Bench is ol ti-re opirlion that the irnpugned order passed by respondent No.1 cannot be said rc be unreasonable or without any basis. Nonetheless, w,e r,.",ould make it clear that, if at a later stage the severity of the situation so far as availabilit), of stafl is concerned improves at any point of time and if the petitioner is stili keen to pursue the aforementioned course, the petitioner shall have the liberty to go ahead and apply for tiie course; and the rejection of request of the petitioner for the current session should not come in the way for the employer / authorities to take a decision thereon. Page 6 oi 6 1,2. Accordingi,v the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed as of non- -.t'ith the aioresaid liberh,. No costs. \ 13, As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending ii ar.1', shaii -stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// S -8. REKHA RANI NT REGISTRAR S TION OFFICER The Registrar (Admn), Hon'ble High Court for the Sta Hyderabad. Hyderabad The Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad. One CC to SRI SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI VIVEK JAIN, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 'l-elangana, To 1 2 3 4 5 SA BS & 1t 6 ! * * * { * * 4 *. 4 t t * i a t HIGH COURT DATED:2410912025 ( \-)( ( !)() 3 1 0[I 2q5 t/ a r,4.rC rrEo a ORDER WP.No.24561 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P wrrHour cosrs. 10