Telangana High Court
C. Sabitha vs The Honble High Court For The State Of ... on 24 September, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
Page 1 of 6
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
Writ Petition No.24561 of 2025
ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the Court for issuance of a Writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus : (i) to declare the action of respondents in issuing the impugned order dated 02.08.2025 communicated on 06.08.2025 rejecting the request for extraordinary leave to pursue regular L.L.B. Course for the Academic Year 2025-2028, as wholly illegal, arbitrary, bereft of any material reasoning and consequently to set aside the proceedings dated 02.08.2025 vide ROC.No.1255/2025-C-3, communicated to the petitioner on 06.08.2025 (for short, 'the impugned order'); (ii) to declare that the petitioner herein is eligible for grant of extraordinary leave to pursue her regular L.L.B. Course for the Academic 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 Academic Year 2025-2028.
Page 2 of 6
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 Telangana, for the respondents.
3. Petitioner herein was appointed as Junior Assistant under the respondent on 02.05.2018. In due course of time, petitioner has completed her probation period. Thereafter, petitioner applied for the Common University Entrance Test [CUET (PG)-2025] through the National Testing Agency to pursue the Three-Year LL.B. Course in the Academic Session 2025-28. The petitioner also took permission from the respondents to apply and to appear for the said examination which was granted by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner participated in the above entrance examination and secured a score of 180 out of 300 marks. Basing on the said score, the petitioner was given an offer of admission at Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi.
4. It is here at this juncture that the petitioner had applied to respondent No.1 through respondent No.2 vide letter dated 09.06.2025 for grant of permission to pursue Three-Year LL.B. Course on regular basis for the Academic Year 2025-28. However, the respondent No.1, vide proceedings in ROC.No.1255/2025-C-3, dated 02.08.2025, rejected the request of petitioner to pursue the aforementioned course.
Page 3 of 6
5. On the previous date of hearing, this Bench had instructed the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents to make available the reason under which respondent No.1 had rejected the request letter of the petitioner. The reason for calling for the said information was that the order passed by respondent No.1 not being a speaking order, neither the said order reflected any reasons for rejecting 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 High Court for the State of Telangana, appearing for the respondents, has produced the correspondence received from the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, addressed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to respondent No.1 herein, vide proceedings No.CCC- HYD/AW/E1/3086/2025, dated 12.06.2025, while forwarding the leave application of the petitioner. In the said letter itself, the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, in very categorical terms had mentioned that due to severe dearth of Junior Assistants in the unit, granting permission to the petitioner to pursue Three-Year LL.B. Decree Course on regular basis would cause hindrance to the regular office work. He further stated that he would not recommend the case of the petitioner for grant of study leave to the petitioner. Basing on the said information and recommendation of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Page 4 of 6 the respondent No.1 rejected the request of the petitioner vide the impugned order.
7. Aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
8. So far as grant of extraordinary study leave is concerned, this Bench is of the opinion that it is always within the domain of the employer to decide whether an employee can be granted study leave or not. Granting of permission to study and grant of study leave for undertaking a course on regular basis are entirely different in nature. In the former situation, the work may not get hampered as even though permission has been granted the employee would still continue to discharge his / her duty and takes leave only when examinations are held and not otherwise. Whereas, in the latter situation, the entire nature of duties and table assigned to the said employee remains vacant for the entire period during which the employee undertakes the course / education which could be three years, and at times even more.
9. In a judicial establishment, particularly these days when there is restriction so far as appointment and fresh recruitment are concerned, dispensing with an employee with the existing strength and with the Page 5 of 6 mounting pressure of work in the judicial establishment particularly in the establishments at the District level, it becomes even more difficult to dispense with an employee for a considerable long period of time, which in the instant case is minimum period of three years.
10. In the opinion of this Bench, it is the employer who is the best judge to decide whether it can grant permission to an employee for availing study leave or not, and if the employer refuses to recommend the case of an employee by making an observation that there is severe dearth of staff in his unit, there is no reason to doubt the averments so made by the employer as regards grant of permission to the petitioner to avail extraordinary study leave for so long a period.
11. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Bench is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 cannot be said to be unreasonable or without any basis. Nonetheless, we would make it clear that, if at a later stage the severity of the situation so far as availability of staff is concerned improves at any point of time and if the petitioner is still keen to pursue the aforementioned course, the petitioner shall have the liberty to go ahead and apply for the 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 of 6
12. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed as of now with the aforesaid liberty. No costs.
13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J _______________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J Date : 24.09.2025 Ndr