The Rajasthan High Court provided relief to the petitioner, a clerk in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, whose request for two years of extraordinary leave to pursue a B.Ed. was initially denied.

The proviso to Rule 96 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 allows for the grant of extraordinary leave for higher studies, up to two years, to temporary or permanent government servants who are not eligible for study leave under Rule 110 of the Rules.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga, relying on a previous case, upheld that while leave cannot be claimed as an absolute right, in cases where the applicant had already paid the fees after being granted admission, the rejection of leave must be based on compelling reasons. The court emphasized that the authority did not possess arbitrary discretion in refusing leave.

The petitioner, serving as a clerk in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, sought to pursue a B.Ed. to enhance her academic qualifications. She had already secured admission to a college and paid the admission fee. To enroll in the course, she applied for two years of extraordinary leave under Rule 96 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 ("Rules").

However, her application was rejected on the grounds that the B.Ed. course was not related to the enhancement of the petitioner’s work efficiency and was not deemed to be in the interest of the department.

The counsel for the respondents argued that leave could not be claimed as a matter of right, and the leave sanctioning authority had the discretion to refuse leave if it was considered not to serve the interests of public service.

The Court observed that the petitioner's request for extraordinary leave under Rule 96 was dismissed without any valid reasons being provided for its rejection. In its judgment, the Court referred to a decision by a single judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court, which had held that...

“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 context, the Court held that since the petitioner had already been granted admission and had paid the admission fee, there was no valid reason to deny her the benefit of Rule 96. 

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

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