High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 20.03.2023 whereby petitioner's application for grant of study leave without pay has been rejected.

3. It has been submitted that petitioner having the qualification of diploma as Laboratory Technician was appointed by means of order dated 23.05.2020 and was regularized vide order dated 16.03.2023. It is submitted that prior to appointment in the said department, petitioner had applied in the Combined Pre- Ayush Test (CPAT)-2017 and selected in the B.A.M.S course whereafter he was enrolled and completed two years of the aforesaid course. It is further submitted that as per the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Regulations, 2016, formulated under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, petitioner is required to complete the aforesaid course within a period of nine years from the date of enrollment. In view thereof, petitioner applied for study leave without pay on 09.11.2022 which has been rejected by means of impugned order primarily on the ground that the course of study of petitioner would be irrelevant for his present employment in the department and that petitioner has completed less than five years of service.

4. It is submitted that the aforesaid aspects have already been considered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Bhawan versus State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2024(3) UPLBEC 1890 and petitioner would be covered by the aforesaid judgment.

5. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter afÏdavit filed has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that impugned order has been passed considering the subject of study of applicant, there is no justification for such leave since it is of no use in the department where he is an employed and also for the reason that his service period is less than five years. It is submitted that in view thereof, such leave can be granted only in special circumstances in terms of Rule 85 of the U.P. Financial Handbook Part II to IV and since petitioner's case does not fall within the category of special circumstances, it has been rightly rejected.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that the aforesaid aspect is squarely covered by judgment rendered in the case Dr. Bhawana (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as follows:- "14. Now, we come to the Rule position. Rule 84 of the Fundamental Rules reads as under:- "84. Leave may be granted to Government servants, on such terms as the Governor may by rule or order prescribe, to enable them to study scientific, technical or similar problems or to undergo special courses of instructions. Such leave is not debited against the leave account."

15. The Study Leave Rules as contained in the Subsidiary Rules have been made by the Government under this Fundamental Rule 84.

16. Fundamental Rule 104 reads as under:- ''104. During their period of probation or apprenticeship, probationers and apprentices are entitled to leave as follows: (a) if appointed under contract in the United Kingdom with a view to permanent service in India, or if appointed in the United Kingdom posts created temporarily with the prospect, more or less definite, of becoming permanent: (i) to such leave as is prescribed in their contracts, or, when no such prescription is made; (ii) (1) when the period of probation is not less than three years, to the same leave which would be admissible if they held permanent posts; or (2) when the period of probation is less than three years, to leave on average pay up to one eleventh of the period spent on duty, to which may be added, on medical certificate, leave on half average pay; provided that the total leave granted under this clause shall not exceed three months reckoned in terms of leave on average pay; (b) If appointed otherwise, to such leave as is admissible under rules framed by the Government on this behalf.

17. Fundamental Rule 104 provides that during their period of probation or apprenticeship, probationers and apprentices are entitled to leave as mentioned therein. Now, Clause (a) thereof deals with those appointed under the contract in the United Kingdom with which we are not concerned, but, Clause (b) thereof which applies to this case, goes on to state that if appointed otherwise i.e. otherwise then what is mentioned in Clause (a), a probationer would be entitled to such leave as is admissible under rules framed by the Government on this behalf.

18. Now, there are Rules which have been made under FR 104- (b). These rules are contained in Chapter XVII. We are concerned with Chapter XVII of the Subsidiary Rules. For the case at hand it is Subsidiary Rule 170 which is relevant and it reads as under:- "170. Leave may be granted to a probationer if it is admissible under the leave rules which would be applicable to him if he held his post substantively otherwise than on probation."

19. Now, in this very context we may refer to Subsidiary Rule 146-A contained in Chapter XI-A and has been made by the Governor under Rule 84 of the Fundamental Rules under the heading 'Study Leave Rules'. Rule 146- A reads as under:- "146-A. The following rules have been been made by the Governor to regulate the grant of additional leave to Government servants for the study of scientific, technical or similar problems, or in order to undertake special courses of instruction. These rules relate to study leave only. They are not intended to meet the case of Government servants deputed to other countries at the instance of the Government, either for the performance of special duties imposed on them or for the investigation of specific problems connected with their technical duties. Such cases will continue to be dealt with on their merits under the provisions of Rules 50 and 51 of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules. These rules apply to the Public Health and Medical Research Departments, the Civil Veterinary Department, the Agricultural Department, the Education Department, the Public Works Department and the Forest Department (except in respect of Continental tours, to which special rules apply). The rules may be extended by the Government to any Government servant not belonging to any of the departments mentioned above in whose case they may be of opinion that leave should be granted in the public interests to pursue a special course of study or investigation of a scientific or technical nature."

20. Fundamental Rule 67 is also relevant and it reads as under:- "67. Leave cannot be claimed as of right, when the exigencies of the Public service so require, discretion to refuse or revoke leave of any description is reserved to the authority empowered to grant it."

21. Fundamental Rule 67 clearly means that if exigencies of Public service so require any prayer for leave can be refused and can not be claimed as a matter of right and discretion to refuse or revoke leave of any description is reserved to the authority empowered to grant it. Now, discretion obviously has to be exercised keeping in mind the object and intent of the Rules and also in a reasonable manner. Discretion can not be exercised unfairly and unreasonable merely on whims or fancies, clearly not to discriminate or in a manner which may result in discrimination.

22. Now, we come to Fundamental Rule 84 which provides that leave may be granted to Government servants, on such terms as the Governor may by rule or order prescribe, to enable them to study scientific, technical or similar problems or to undergo special courses of instructions. Such leave is not debited against the leave account. Fundamental Rule 84 permits grant of leave for study whether scientific, technical or of any other nature referred therein subject of course to the terms as the Governor may be rule or order prescribe.

23. Now, Subsidiary Rule 146-A has been framed under Fundamental Rule 84. We have already quoted it above. It is under the heading 'Study Leave Rules'. The said rule applies only to Government servants which the appellant/petitioner before us is. The said rule has been made by the Governor to regulate the grant of additional leave to Government servant for the study of scientific, technical or similar problems, or in order to undertake special courses of instructions. These rules relate to study leave only. From a reading of the said Rule it is clear that these rules are in addition to other Rules admissible to Government servants including the extraordinary leave under Subsidiary Rule 157. The rule specifically states that they apply to the Public Health and Medical Research Departments, the Civil Veterinary Departments and other departments, therefore, the rule clearly envisages situation where the OfÏcers and employees of such departments may require study further in addition to the educational qualifications already acquired by them and therefore, the Rule caters to such situation. In fact, the rule further goes on to state that the rule may be extended by the Government to any Government servant not belonging to any of the departments mentioned therein in whose case they may be of opinion that leave should be granted in the public interest to pursue a special course of study or investigation of a scientific or technical nature, therefore, there is an element of public interest implicit in the grant of such study leave and Subsidiary Rule made by the Governor itself recognizes it and extend the same even to those departments which are not specifically mentioned under Subsidiary Rule 146-A, subject of course to there being public interest involved.

24. Thereafter, Sub-rule (2) of Subsidiary Rule 146-A, inter alia, provides that study leave should not ordinarily be granted to Government servant of less than five years' of service or to government servant within three years of the date at which they have the option of retiring. The use of the word 'ordinarily' itself is indicative that in given circumstances, may be extraordinary circumstances, such leave can be granted to a Government servant who has put in less than five years of service.

32. We are of the considered opinion that use of the word 'ordinarily' in the said Rule permits the grant of study leave in extraordinary circumstances (not ordinarily or in a routine manner) and we are also of the opinion that facts before us constitute extraordinary circumstances as already discussed hereinabove, more-so because the appellant must have deposited fee etc. and incurred other expenses for the said Course , all of which will go waste.

33. We may in this very context refer to Subsidiary Rule 170 which has been made under Fundamental Rule 104(b) and says that leave may be granted to a probationer if it is admissible under the leave Rules which would be applicable to him if he held his post substantively otherwise than on probation, meaning thereby, if the probationer was substantively appointed on a post after completed of probation and would be entitled to certain leaves, then, those leaves would also be admissible to a probationer. This rule also does not come in the way of the appellant/petitioner in the grant of study leave in the factual circumstances as already noticed hereinabove, rather it supports her case.

34. No doubt, Rule 67 is there, but, then, the State Government has not rejected the leave application with reference to any Public exigency nor with reference to Fundamental Rule 67, in fact, rejection is on the ground that it is impermissible, there being no such provision for a probationer, which is factually and legally incorrect as already discussed."

7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgment and reasons indicated therein particularly in terms of fundamental rules and subsidiary rules clearly provide for grant of such study leave which can be rejected only in terms of subsidiary rules 146 A(2) and that too is not a complete prohibition since under given circumstances, such leave can be granted to such a Government Servant who has put in less than five years of service.

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, grant of refusal of study leave to petitioner only on the ground that the B.A.M.S course is irrelevant for purposes of employment of petitioner in the department, is itself irrelevant.

9. In terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is the fundamental right of any person to better himself particularly in the field of education. No restriction can be placed upon knowledge in case a person wishes to achieve a higher level of learning.

10. The grounds for refusal of study leave to petitioner therefore are in violation not only of the fundamental rules but also fundamental right of petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

11. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 20.03.2023 being violative of fundamental right of petitioner, is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. Further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite party no.1 i.e. Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Services, Government of U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to grant leave without pay to petitioner for purposes of completion of B.A.M.S course within stipulated time period. Such orders shall be passed within a period of ten days' from the date certified copy of this order is served upon competent authority.

12. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 20.03.2023 whereby petitioner's application for grant of study leave without pay has been rejected.

3. It has been submitted that petitioner having the qualification of diploma as Laboratory Technician was appointed by means of order dated 23.05.2020 and was regularized vide order dated 16.03.2023. It is submitted that prior to appointment in the said department, petitioner had applied in the Combined Pre- Ayush Test (CPAT)-2017 and selected in the B.A.M.S course whereafter he was enrolled and completed two years of the aforesaid course. It is further submitted that as per the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Regulations, 2016, formulated under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, petitioner is required to complete the aforesaid course within a period of nine years from the date of enrollment. In view thereof, petitioner applied for study leave without pay on 09.11.2022 which has been rejected by means of impugned order primarily on the ground that the course of study of petitioner would be irrelevant for his present employment in the department and that petitioner has completed less than five years of service.

4. It is submitted that the aforesaid aspects have already been considered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Bhawan versus State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2024(3) UPLBEC 1890 and petitioner would be covered by the aforesaid judgment.

5. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter afÏdavit filed has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that impugned order has been passed considering the subject of study of applicant, there is no justification for such leave since it is of no use in the department where he is an employed and also for the reason that his service period is less than five years. It is submitted that in view thereof, such leave can be granted only in special circumstances in terms of Rule 85 of the U.P. Financial Handbook Part II to IV and since petitioner's case does not fall within the category of special circumstances, it has been rightly rejected.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that the aforesaid aspect is squarely covered by judgment rendered in the case Dr. Bhawana (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as follows:- "14. Now, we come to the Rule position. Rule 84 of the Fundamental Rules reads as under:- "84. Leave may be granted to Government servants, on such terms as the Governor may by rule or order prescribe, to enable them to study scientific, technical or similar problems or to undergo special courses of instructions. Such leave is not debited against the leave account."

15. The Study Leave Rules as contained in the Subsidiary Rules have been made by the Government under this Fundamental Rule 84.

16. Fundamental Rule 104 reads as under:- ''104. During their period of probation or apprenticeship, probationers and apprentices are entitled to leave as follows: (a) if appointed under contract in the United Kingdom with a view to permanent service in India, or if appointed in the United Kingdom posts created temporarily with the prospect, more or less definite, of becoming permanent: (i) to such leave as is prescribed in their contracts, or, when no such prescription is made; (ii) (1) when the period of probation is not less than three years, to the same leave which would be admissible if they held permanent posts; or (2) when the period of probation is less than three years, to leave on average pay up to one eleventh of the period spent on duty, to which may be added, on medical certificate, leave on half average pay; provided that the total leave granted under this clause shall not exceed three months reckoned in terms of leave on average pay; (b) If appointed otherwise, to such leave as is admissible under rules framed by the Government on this behalf.

17. Fundamental Rule 104 provides that during their period of probation or apprenticeship, probationers and apprentices are entitled to leave as mentioned therein. Now, Clause (a) thereof deals with those appointed under the contract in the United Kingdom with which we are not concerned, but, Clause (b) thereof which applies to this case, goes on to state that if appointed otherwise i.e. otherwise then what is mentioned in Clause (a), a probationer would be entitled to such leave as is admissible under rules framed by the Government on this behalf.

18. Now, there are Rules which have been made under FR 104- (b). These rules are contained in Chapter XVII. We are concerned with Chapter XVII of the Subsidiary Rules. For the case at hand it is Subsidiary Rule 170 which is relevant and it reads as under:- "170. Leave may be granted to a probationer if it is admissible under the leave rules which would be applicable to him if he held his post substantively otherwise than on probation."

19. Now, in this very context we may refer to Subsidiary Rule 146-A contained in Chapter XI-A and has been made by the Governor under Rule 84 of the Fundamental Rules under the heading 'Study Leave Rules'. Rule 146- A reads as under:- "146-A. The following rules have been been made by the Governor to regulate the grant of additional leave to Government servants for the study of scientific, technical or similar problems, or in order to undertake special courses of instruction. These rules relate to study leave only. They are not intended to meet the case of Government servants deputed to other countries at the instance of the Government, either for the performance of special duties imposed on them or for the investigation of specific problems connected with their technical duties. Such cases will continue to be dealt with on their merits under the provisions of Rules 50 and 51 of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules. These rules apply to the Public Health and Medical Research Departments, the Civil Veterinary Department, the Agricultural Department, the Education Department, the Public Works Department and the Forest Department (except in respect of Continental tours, to which special rules apply). The rules may be extended by the Government to any Government servant not belonging to any of the departments mentioned above in whose case they may be of opinion that leave should be granted in the public interests to pursue a special course of study or investigation of a scientific or technical nature."

20. Fundamental Rule 67 is also relevant and it reads as under:- "67. Leave cannot be claimed as of right, when the exigencies of the Public service so require, discretion to refuse or revoke leave of any description is reserved to the authority empowered to grant it."

21. Fundamental Rule 67 clearly means that if exigencies of Public service so require any prayer for leave can be refused and can not be claimed as a matter of right and discretion to refuse or revoke leave of any description is reserved to the authority empowered to grant it. Now, discretion obviously has to be exercised keeping in mind the object and intent of the Rules and also in a reasonable manner. Discretion can not be exercised unfairly and unreasonable merely on whims or fancies, clearly not to discriminate or in a manner which may result in discrimination.

22. Now, we come to Fundamental Rule 84 which provides that leave may be granted to Government servants, on such terms as the Governor may by rule or order prescribe, to enable them to study scientific, technical or similar problems or to undergo special courses of instructions. Such leave is not debited against the leave account. Fundamental Rule 84 permits grant of leave for study whether scientific, technical or of any other nature referred therein subject of course to the terms as the Governor may be rule or order prescribe.

23. Now, Subsidiary Rule 146-A has been framed under Fundamental Rule 84. We have already quoted it above. It is under the heading 'Study Leave Rules'. The said rule applies only to Government servants which the appellant/petitioner before us is. The said rule has been made by the Governor to regulate the grant of additional leave to Government servant for the study of scientific, technical or similar problems, or in order to undertake special courses of instructions. These rules relate to study leave only. From a reading of the said Rule it is clear that these rules are in addition to other Rules admissible to Government servants including the extraordinary leave under Subsidiary Rule 157. The rule specifically states that they apply to the Public Health and Medical Research Departments, the Civil Veterinary Departments and other departments, therefore, the rule clearly envisages situation where the OfÏcers and employees of such departments may require study further in addition to the educational qualifications already acquired by them and therefore, the Rule caters to such situation. In fact, the rule further goes on to state that the rule may be extended by the Government to any Government servant not belonging to any of the departments mentioned therein in whose case they may be of opinion that leave should be granted in the public interest to pursue a special course of study or investigation of a scientific or technical nature, therefore, there is an element of public interest implicit in the grant of such study leave and Subsidiary Rule made by the Governor itself recognizes it and extend the same even to those departments which are not specifically mentioned under Subsidiary Rule 146-A, subject of course to there being public interest involved.

24. Thereafter, Sub-rule (2) of Subsidiary Rule 146-A, inter alia, provides that study leave should not ordinarily be granted to Government servant of less than five years' of service or to government servant within three years of the date at which they have the option of retiring. The use of the word 'ordinarily' itself is indicative that in given circumstances, may be extraordinary circumstances, such leave can be granted to a Government servant who has put in less than five years of service.

32. We are of the considered opinion that use of the word 'ordinarily' in the said Rule permits the grant of study leave in extraordinary circumstances (not ordinarily or in a routine manner) and we are also of the opinion that facts before us constitute extraordinary circumstances as already discussed hereinabove, more-so because the appellant must have deposited fee etc. and incurred other expenses for the said Course , all of which will go waste.

33. We may in this very context refer to Subsidiary Rule 170 which has been made under Fundamental Rule 104(b) and says that leave may be granted to a probationer if it is admissible under the leave Rules which would be applicable to him if he held his post substantively otherwise than on probation, meaning thereby, if the probationer was substantively appointed on a post after completed of probation and would be entitled to certain leaves, then, those leaves would also be admissible to a probationer. This rule also does not come in the way of the appellant/petitioner in the grant of study leave in the factual circumstances as already noticed hereinabove, rather it supports her case.

34. No doubt, Rule 67 is there, but, then, the State Government has not rejected the leave application with reference to any Public exigency nor with reference to Fundamental Rule 67, in fact, rejection is on the ground that it is impermissible, there being no such provision for a probationer, which is factually and legally incorrect as already discussed."

7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgment and reasons indicated therein particularly in terms of fundamental rules and subsidiary rules clearly provide for grant of such study leave which can be rejected only in terms of subsidiary rules 146 A(2) and that too is not a complete prohibition since under given circumstances, such leave can be granted to such a Government Servant who has put in less than five years of service.

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, grant of refusal of study leave to petitioner only on the ground that the B.A.M.S course is irrelevant for purposes of employment of petitioner in the department, is itself irrelevant.

9. In terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is the fundamental right of any person to better himself particularly in the field of education. No restriction can be placed upon knowledge in case a person wishes to achieve a higher level of learning.

10. The grounds for refusal of study leave to petitioner therefore are in violation not only of the fundamental rules but also fundamental right of petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

11. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 20.03.2023 being violative of fundamental right of petitioner, is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. Further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite party no.1 i.e. Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Services, Government of U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to grant leave without pay to petitioner for purposes of completion of B.A.M.S course within stipulated time period. Such orders shall be passed within a period of ten days' from the date certified copy of this order is served upon competent authority.

12. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench