Petitioner sought study leave to complete Ph.D course, alleging equal treatment was denied. Court directed respondents to decide within 10 days considering sanctions for similarly placed persons.
Directed respondents to take a decision on petitioner's study leave within 10 days, keeping in mind sanctions granted to similarly placed persons.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 150 of 2019
Dileshwari W/o Mansingh Banjare Aged About 28 Years Presently Posted As Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Block Jagdalpur, R/o Village J MIG-7, Bodhghat Colony, Housing Board, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mahanandi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Under Secretary Agriculture Department, Mahanandi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Indira Krishi Vishwavidhayalaya Through Its Registrar, Krishak Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Shri Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondents-State : Shri, Salmeen Kazi, Dy. A.G. For Respondent No. 3 Shri, D.L Prajapati, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
04.02.2019
1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has applied for grant of study leave for pursuing her Ph.D course in Social and Water Engineering. The petitioner has already completed 2 and ½ years of the three years Ph.D course. While undergoing Ph.D course, the petitioner got present appointment and therefore She has moved an application for grant of study leave so that her Ph.D course may be completed.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that similarly placed persons who were appointed along with petitioner have been granted study leave by the
2
department and who have already proceeded for their respective course, but in case of the petitioner the respondents had initially rejected her claim on 14.03.2018. It is subsequent that the respondents have given permission to other similarly placed persons and therefore the petitioner should also be granted or extended similar treatment.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that by granting study leave to other similarly placed persons the respondents have ignored the rule condition under which the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the earlier occasion which has led to the filing of the present writ petition.
4. The respondents/State in the present case have already entered appearance and filed their reply. In the reply, the respondents have in Paragraph 4&5 stated as under:-
3
5. From a bare reading of the aforesaid submissions made by the State in their reply, it clearly reflects that the case of the petitioner appears to be under reconsideration before the respondents no. 1 &2.
6. Given the aforesaid facts and the submissions which the petitioner makes that the period for joining of the Ph.D course now stands further extended uptill 23.02.2019, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the respondents no. 1 &2 is directed to take a decision in the case of the petitioner within a period of 10 days from today. While taking a decision they shall also keep in mind the sanction/ approval granted to identically placed persons who were appointed along with the petitioner. Let a decision be taken positively before 23.02.2019.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed off.
8. Certified copy today itself. Sd/-
inder/Jyoti
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to study leave for Ph.D course similar to other similarly placed persons.
Whether the respondents are required to take a final decision on the study leave claim within a specified time.
Dileshwari W/o Mansingh Banjare
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Department
Indira Krishi Vishwavidhalaya
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
