Chattisgarh High Court
Mandvi Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 August, 2017
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
WPS No. 3572 of 2017
Mandvi Sahu Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
25/08/2017 Shri SC Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B Gopa Kumar, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent No.1.
Shri SS Rajput, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2- University Grant Commission.
Counsel for the petitioner is directed to serve complete set of writ petition to Shri Rajput.
In the instant case when the matter was taken up on 08.08.2017,28.08.2017 and 24.08.2017, the respondents No.3&4 were represented by a counsel for the Ravishankar University on advance notice. Today, the office of Shri Ashish Shrivastava makes a statement before the court that in spite of intimation being sent to the respondents No.3&4 through e-mail, there is no response, and therefore, the office of Shri Shrivastava shows their reluctance in appearing before this court in the present case.
The grievance of the petitioner in the present case is Annexure P/1 & P/2 dated 29.07.2017. Vide the said impugned letter, the claim of the petitioner for grant of study leave for undertaking Ph.D course has been rejected. The reasons assigned in the rejection order is Rule 42(5)(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 (for short, Leave Rules, 2010) whereby the minimum regular length of service required for grant of study leave is five years and which the petitioner does not have.
Counsel for the petitioner assailing the orders draws the attention of the court to the guidelines framed by the UGC which is revised guidelines for grant of study leave of the year, 2013. Clause-3 of revised guidelines is reproduced as under :
"Study leave may be granted to entry-level appointees as Assistant Professor/Assistant Librarian/Assistant Director of Physical Education and Sports/College DPE&S (other than an Associate Professor or Professor of a University/College/Institution, who is otherwise eligible for sabbatical leave) after a minimum of three years of continuous service, to pursue a special line of study or research directly related to his/her work in the university/college/institution or to make a special study of the various aspects of university organizations and methods of education giving full plan of work."
A plain reading of the aforesaid revised guidelines would show that the minimum continuous service required for seeking study leave for acquiring new knowledge or to improve analytical skills by undertaking or for pursuing studies leading to Ph.D is three years of continuous service. The petitioner in the instant case was appointed on 08.11.2012 and in due course of time her services have also been confirmed w.e.f. 07.07.2017.
According to counsel for the petitioner, if we take into consideration the date of appointment to be 08.11.2012, the petitioner falls short of 3 to 4 months in completing five years of service required for grant of study leave whereas, if we take into consideration the guidelines of the UGC, the petitioner has already completed the three years of service as is required.
In the instant case, according to the petitioner, the authorities does not appear to have applied their mind in this regard and have rejected the claim of the petitioner in a mechanical manner strictly complying the rules for grant of study leave. He also submits that the guidelines and the revised guidelines issued by the UGC has a mandatory force of law and the authorities could not have ignored the guidelines so framed by the UGC. Therefore, the impugned orders need reconsideration.
Opposing the petition, counsel for the State submits that a plain reading of the statute would show that it requires five years of continuous service before applying for study leave and in the instant case admittedly the petitioner falls short of the minimum five years period required and therefore, the impugned orders cannot be said to be bad in law or the authorities having passed the order with malafide intention.
Counsel for the respondent-UGC though appearing on advance notice today submits that under the normal course the guidelines and the revised guidelines which are floated by the UGC have to be followed by all the Universities in the country so as to maintain a uniformity so far as aims and objectives for which the UGC has been constituted and for maintaining a minimum standard in all the Universities recognized by the UGC in the country.
Be that as it may, taking into consideration the submissions which have been put forth by the counsel for the petitioner, this court is of the view that the submissions so made by the petitioner does have some force and the respondent authorities seem to have not applied their mind while rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of study leave. A document which is part of Annexure P/4 dated 05.04.2017, which is application moved by the petitioner seeking for grant of NOC for admission to Ph.D. Course for the year, 2017-18 and the same was also forwarded to the competent authority, but subsequently on one hand the same was allowed vide Annexure P/2, but at the same time, condition was put that the duties which have been assigned to the petitioner should not be adversely affected.
What is reflected from the petition is that, the petitioner all along had intimated the respondent authorities of her intention to seek admission to do Ph.D course from the National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management, Govt. of India, Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana. This by itself clearly reflect that she would had to go out of Raipur for undertaking her Ph.D. Course. Under the given circumstances, the authorities could not have at the first intance impose the condition that the duties assigned to her should not be adversely affected, as is reflected from Annexure P/2. What appears from the record is that the respondent authorities have not taken a pragmatic approach while deciding the claim application of the petitioner and also have not dealt with the guidelines framed by the UGC in this regard.
This being the total facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the authorities concerned i.e. respondent No.4 shall reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of study leave keeping in view the revised guidelines issued by the UGC for grant of study leave in the year, 2013.
Taking into consideration that the petitioner has to get an NOC before 31.08.2017, it is expected that the respondent No.4 shall reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of study leave by 30.08.2017 at any cost and shall intimate the petitioner in respect of decision taken on reconsideration positively on the same day. We are keeping this petition for 30.08.2017 so that we can pass appropriate orders as per decision taken by the University.
Post on 30.08.2017.
Certified copy today itself.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Inder