Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Smt. Sanjita Negi vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. Through on 25 August, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No.1379 of 2010 New Delhi this the 25th day of August, 2011 Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) Smt. Sanjita Negi W/o Sh. Sandeep Negi, R/o C-71, Sainik Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110051. .... Applicant ( By Advocate Shri M.K. Bhardwaj ) VERSUS Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. through : 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate, Delhi. 2. The Secretary (Education), Govt. of NCT of Delhi Old Secretariat, New Delhi. 3. The Director (Education) Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, New Delhi. 4. The Regional Director (West) Directorate of Education, Lucknow Road, Timarpur, Delhi 5. Board of Research Studies for Social Sciences, Social Sciences Faculty Building, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007. .. Respondents ( By Advocate Ms. Harvinder Oberai ) O R D E R
The applicant, a PGT (Political Science) and presently working in SKV, C-Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi, has filed this Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking directions to the respondents to grant her two years study leave to pursue Ph.D in Political Science from Delhi University and direct the respondents to issue necessary orders for grant of study leave as approved by respondent no.3.
2. During the pendency of this Application, the respondents have passed order dated 13.5.2010 rejecting the applicants request for grant of study leave. Thereupon the applicant moved amendments in the OA seeking quashing and setting aside of respondents letter of rejection dated 13.5.2010 and further directions to the respondents to grant the applicant study leave and pass necessary orders for this purpose as approved by the respondent no.3.
3. The applicant joined the respondents school in January 2005. She appeared in an interview for admission to Ph.D. course in Political Science from Delhi University on 20.2.2009 with approval of office for that purpose. Her case was approved for provisional admission in Ph.D. course in the Department of Political Science by the Board of Research Studies for Social Sciences, Social Sciences Faculty Building, University of Delhi vide their Memorandum dated 19/27.3.2009, as at Annexure A/2. She was advised to submit necessary sanction/relieving letter within a period of one month from the date of issue of that Memorandum. Thereupon she applied for grant of study leave, which was approved by the Principal being the Head of the School. The applicant claimed that she was verbally informed by the Principal that her request for grant of study leave was approved by the respondent no.3 as per the rules and she was asked to give time schedule for study leave, which she did on 16.2.2010 and applied for study leave w.e.f. 23.3.2010. The applicant pursued the matter for issuance of necessary orders for grant of study leave so that the same can be submitted to the University in time for regularizing her admission to Ph.D. course in Political Science. Simultaneously since the time allowed for submission of sanction/relieving letter was expiring, she also applied to the University of Delhi for extension of time for submitting necessary sanction/ relieving letter from her employer. In response thereto, she was informed vide Memorandum dated March 2, 2010, as at Annexure A/6, by the University of Delhi that she should submit necessary sanction/relieving letter from her employer latest by April 30, 2010, failing which her admission to the Ph.D. Course in the Department of Political Sciences, would stand cancelled. Since the applicant failed to get the necessary sanction/relieving letter from the respondents to enable her to comply with the University requirement as aforesaid, she filed this Application on 23.4.2010 seeking directions to the respondents inter alia to issue necessary orders of grant of study leave as approved by the respondent no.3.
4. After issuance of notice in the OA, the respondents rejected the request of the applicant for grant of study leave on 13.5.2010. Thereupon the applicant moved amendments in the OA so as to challenge this letter of rejection as well.
5. The applicant challenges the impugned action of the respondents on a number of grounds, as mentioned in para 5 of the Application. Accordingly, it has inter alia been contended that study leave has been granted to number of persons but the same has been denied to the applicant, which is discriminatory and arbitrary. She has been given permission to appear in the interview and when she has been selected by making extraneous efforts, it is not open to the respondents to deny the grant of study leave to the applicant. The respondents erred in not correctly appreciating that the grant of study leave would be in the interest of the department, as she would benefit the children after acquiring the said qualification from the University of Delhi. The applicant is even ready to do Ph.D. without grant of study leave but cannot do so as the University made it mandatory to get the study leave of two years from the employer to pursue the Ph.D. course. The applicant satisfies all the conditions envisaged under the Rules for grant of study rules but the same has been denied to the applicant without application of mind and by ignoring the rules.
6. The respondents have filed their counter reply opposing the applicants claim for grant of study leave for the reason inter alia that the applicant does not have justiciable cause of action, as she does not have any legal or vested right to study leave, which is being infringed or violated. It has further been submitted that since the applicant is already having requisite qualification being a P.G.T. for teaching students upto Senior Secondary level, so her request for further education & study leave is not in the interest of the department. The case of the applicant for study leave was initially processed by the concerned HOS, on which much reliance has been placed by the applicant. However, in such cases the competent authority for sanctioning the study leave under the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, is the Administrator, who, in turn, has delegated the power to deal with requests for study leave to the Director vide Circular No.FDE/Act/27/PB/Delegation/2001/ 4863-4892 dated 4.9.2001. After due consideration of the applicants request, the competent authority has rejected the applicants request for grant of study leave vide order dated 13.5.2010. It has been contended by the respondents that the competent authority has been of the view that the Ph.D. course in Political Science would be of no advantage to the department of answering respondents, as the applicant, being a PGT, is already having Post Graduate qualification to teach students upto senior secondary level and, therefore, non-grant of study leave to the applicant would not cause any loss to the department. It has been submitted that there has been no permission of the competent authority to grant the study leave to the applicant. It has been strenuously argued by the respondents counsel that the grant of study leave has to be examined and decided on its own merits and, therefore, it is not open for any one to seek parity with reference to other cases wherein study leave has been granted. Referring to the case of Shri Ramesh Chander on which reliance has been placed by the applicant it is submitted by the respondents that the same stands on different footing as he was granted permission to do M.P. ed., which is different than the Ph.D. The same is the case with regard to Ms. Manisha Godiyal, Ms. Shanti Devi Meena and Ms. Kusumlata. All the said three Assistant Teachers were granted permission and study leave to undergo B.ed. from SCERT as per the names sponsored by the Directorate of Education and not for Ph.D., as wrongly alleged by the applicant. Much reliance has been placed by the respondents on the provisions of Rule 50 (3) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, wherein certain conditions have been prescribed for grant of study leave and the same are not satisfied in the case of the applicant. Accordingly, study leave is not granted for academic or literary subject. Therefore, the applicant cannot be granted study leave for pursuing an academic subject, i.e., political science for her own personal betterment, which is barred by Rule 50 (3) referred to above.
7. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant assails the impugned action of the respondents primarily on three grounds. Accordingly, it has been contended that similar persons, namely Shri Ramesh Chander, Ms. Manisha Godiyal, Ms. Shanti Devi Meena and Ms. Kusumlata have been granted permission for study leave and therefore, the same could not have been denied to the applicant for otherwise this would be discriminatory. It has further been contended that acquiring higher qualification of Ph.D. would certainly be to the benefit of the department, as it would bring qualitative change in teaching imparted by the applicant. The competent authority has erred in not appreciating this fact correctly. Furthermore, the letter of rejection does not contain any reason as to why the study leave is not to be granted to the applicant and, therefore, it is bad in law. In support of this, the learned counsel for the applicant has cited the case of State of Orissa vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & ors., 1967 (2) SCR 625, wherein it has been observed by the Apex Court that even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made inconsonance with the rules of natural justice.
8. Opposing the applicants claim, the learned counsel for the respondents specifically referred to Rule 7 of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, according to which, leave cannot be claimed as of right. Since the applicant cannot claim study leave as of right, there is no justiciable cause of action in the Application. The applicant has to show that she has a right, which has been violated by the respondents that may warrant the judicial remedy. Since she does not have any right, the question of any remedy would not arise. Furthermore, the consideration for grant of permission for appearing in the interview is not the same as the consideration, which would weigh in the mind of the competent authority at the time of sanction of study leave. Furthermore, each case for grant of study leave will have to be decided on its own merits by its very nature, which is not comparable with one another. Similar cases referred to by the applicant are indeed not similar, as claimed by the applicant. They are different, as has been pointed out in the counter reply by the respondents. None of these persons is similarly placed as averred by the applicant. It has further been submitted by the respondents counsel that the applicant has already having maximum qualifications as required for the post she is holding and, therefore, any further qualification may not be necessary. In any case, it is for the competent authority to decide as to whether the proposed course of study will be of definite advantage of the department or not. The applicant cannot impose her own opinion in this regard upon the respondents. Furthermore, from the records, it will be seen that there is shortage of teachers and rules provides for rejection or even revoking of leave in the exigency of public service if so required. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted the case file for our perusal and submitted that the reasons for refusing the grant study leave can be gathered from the records. The same need not be communicated in detail to the applicant. The administrative order of rejection of study leave does not entail civil consequences and the case of Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and others relied upon by the applicant is distinguishable on facts. That was the case of change of date of birth having the effect to the date of superannuation of the applicant therein. The case of grant of study leave stands altogether on different footing.
9. We have given our careful consideration to the respective submissions made by both the parties. We have also carefully perused the records of the case.
10. At the very outset, it would be relevant to note the provisions of CCS (Leave) Rules, having bearing on the issues involved in the present case. Rule 7 deals with regard to right to leave provides as under:-
7. Right to leave Leave cannot be claimed as of right.
When the exigencies of public service so require, leave of any kind may be refused ore revoked by the authority competent to grant it, but it shall not be open to that authority to alter the kind of leave due and applied for except at the written request of the Government servant. Chapter VI, containing Rules 50 to 63, deals with study leave. Rule 50 is relevant in this regard. This Rule 50 provides for conditions for grant of study leave. The relevant part of that Rule 50 is contained in sub-rule (3) as follows:-
(3) Study leave shall not be granted unless-
it is certified by the authority competent to grant leave that the proposed course of study or training shall be of definite advantage from the point of view of public interests;
it is for prosecution of studies in subjects other than academic or literary subject: From the aforesaid, it is seen that grant of study leave is subject to the exigency of public service and must have direct and close connection with the sphere of applicants duty. The rule mandatorily requires the competent authority to certify that the proposed course of study for training shall be of definite advantage from the point of view of public interest. It is also relevant to note that grant of study leave is not for higher study simplicitor. The higher study must be of the nature and description as envisaged in the rules. It is, therefore, for the competent authority to take care of the compliance of the requirement of the rules with regard to grant of study leave. If the rule envisages that the competent authority is to certify that the proposed course of study will be of definite advantage from the point of view of public interest, the opinion of the applicant to the contrary will not be of much relevance. Once the competent authority has declined to certify in terms of Rule 3 (ii) of Rule 50, the applicant cannot assail the same for the reason that he holds a different opinion so as to say that the proposed course of study would be beneficial to the department.
11. Furthermore, the rule prohibit for grant of study leave for pursuing the academic and literary courses. It is not the case of the applicant that Ph.D. in Political Science does not fall in this category.
12. The impugned letter has been challenged by the applicant inter alia on the ground that it does not contain any reason. When the subject matter is governed by the rules, the reasons for refusal flow from the rules. On perusal of the file, it is seen that the study leave was initially granted inadvertently by HOS/RD whereas the sanctioning authority for grant of study leave as per CCS (Leave) Rules, is the administrator. On a perusal of the case file, it is seen that while recalling the file, the matter was reconsidered by the respondents in the light of the following points :-
1. The course, namely PHD is of no definite advantage to Government from the point of view of public interest.
2. The individual is already holding the maximum qualification required for the post of PGT.
3. The proposed course of study or training is of no definite advantage from the point of view of PUBLIC INTEREST.
4. Requisite Bonds in the prescribed forms are required to be executed by the official which have not been done in the instant case.
5. Competent Authority to grant Study Leave is :-
a. Ministry/Department of Central Govt./Administrator/Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The impugned order of rejection of study leave to the applicant has been arrived at by the respondents in the applicants case as follows:-
The matter regarding grant of study leave for 2 years to Smt. Sanjita Negi, PGT for persuing a Ph.D. course in Political Science was discussed with DE along with Jt.Secretary(Admn.). As per rules study leave can be granted to a Govt. servant with due regard to exigencies of public service subject to certain conditions. In accordance with Rule 50 of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, the following observations have been made in this case:-
i) The study leave is only to be granted if the proposed course of study is of a definite advantage from the point of view of public interest Rule 50 (3) (i). In the present case Ph.D. course does not seem to be of any definite advantage. The applicant being a PGT is already having required qualification to teach school students upto Sr.Secondary level.
ii) As per rule 50 (3) (ii) the study leave is not to be granted if it is for prosecution of studies in academic or literary subjects, whereas the applicant wants to pursue Ph.D. in an academic subject viz. Political Science. Moreover only officers of Indian Economic Service or Indian Statistical Service are specified in rule 50 (3) (ii) who may be granted study leave for obtaining Ph.D. subject to fulfilling certain conditions.
It is also observed that while granting study leave, the case should be considered on merits in consultation with the Department of Expenditure of the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India (Rule 50 (2) (iii), since it involves huge financial implications.
It is also informed that Ms. Sanjita Negi has filed an OA No.1379/2010 in CAT in this regard which is listed for 14.05.2010.
Keeping in view the above observations, the application of Ms. Sanjita Negi, PGT may not be approved for grant of study leave.
Submitted please.
Sd/- 12/05/10 Regional Director (West) Dr. 12/5/10 RDE (West) 12/05/10 From the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the impugned action of the respondents is without any application of mind. It is supported by reasons, as mentioned above, and certainly the administrative orders as communicated to the person concerned need not contain the detailed reasons like the judicial orders. However, if certain orders infringed civil consequences, they ought to be inconsonance with the rule of principles of natural justice. This is not the case here. In any case, leave has to be granted in accordance with the rules. It is for the applicant to make out his case in accordance with the rules governing the subject before seeking legal remedy in respect thereto. The applicant has failed to discharge his onus in the present case.
13. Reference to similarly placed persons by the applicant is not of much help to her, as each case has to be decided on its own merits. The cases relied upon by the applicant are not comparable as explained by the respondents in their reply.
14. Furthermore, since the admission of the applicant to Ph.D. course has already lapsed, the directions sought for by her in these proceedings are not called for.
15. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above, the applicant has not been able to make out a case for grant of leave as prayed for by her. The OA is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) Member (J) /ravi/