AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition initially seeking for a direction to the first Respondent to consider the
representation, dated 11.5.2010 for undergoing LL.B Course on regular study basis. In that representation, a copy of which is found enclosed in
pages 8 to 10 of the typed set, the Petitioner had stated that while he was working as an Assistant in the District Employment Office at
Dharmapuri, he had applied for permission to join and study LL.B Course on regular mode during the academic year 2008-2009. The third
Respondent had acknowledged his requisition on 12.03.2008, but no orders were passed on his requisition. Thereafter, he submitted a
representation to the first and second Respondents.
At the time when the Petitioner sought for permission, there was a move to fix an upper age limit of 30 years for getting entry into the admission
to LL.B regular course from the academic year 2009-2010. Therefore, the Petitioner''s apprehension was that he will lose his seat because of non
receipt of reply from the third Respondent. The Petitioner''s ambition was to study LL.B regular course. Accordingly, he joined regular course
during the year 2008-09. His date of joining course in Dr. Ambedkar Law College, Tirupathi in Andhra Pradesh was on 16.6.2008. Since none of
the Respondents had raised objections, the Petitioner had presumed that there was no objection on their part and in fact, they had impliedly
granted approval for doing the course. He had also applied Unearned leave on private affairs for undergoing the study of LL.B regular course.
Since no formal orders were passed on his representation, he filed the present writ petition.
When the matter came up on 16.3.2011, the learned Government Advocate was directed to take notice. During the pendency of the
proceedings, the Petitioner filed an application in M.P. No. 1 of 2011, seeking to amend the prayer. By the amended prayer, the Petitioner sought
for a declaration that his request to permit him for doing the LL.B regular study course has been deemed to have been granted. He also sought to
implead the Secretary to Government, P&AR Department, Government of Tamil Nadu as party fourth Respondent in M.P. No. 2 of 2011. This
Court while ordering M.P. No. 1 of 2011 had felt that impleadment of proposed fourth Respondent was unnecessary. Hence M.P. No. 2 of 2011
stood dismissed.
On notice from this Court, a counter affidavit, dated 7.4.2011 was filed by the second Respondent. The second Respondent contended that
when the Petitioner was working in the office of the District Employment Office, Cuddalore, he was transferred to Dharmapuri on administrative
grounds. His request for studying LL.B three years regular course was rejected by the second Respondent on 19.6.2008. He had joined duty at
Dharmapuri office on 14.3.2008. It is also stated that under Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Study Leave Rules, 1965, study leave cannot be granted
ordinarily to a Government servant if he has rendered less than five years of service or if he is not holding Group A and Group B posts under the
Government or who is due to retire within three years from the date on which he is expected to return duty after leave. It was claimed that since the
Petitioner is holding Group C post, he is not eligible to apply for study leave. It is also stated that a charge memo has been issued under Rule 17(b)
of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, dated 9.1.2009 to the Petitioner for undergoing such a course and for his
unauthorised absence from 1.6.2008. An Enquiry Officer has also been appointed on 18.5.2010. It was further stated that unearned leave on
private affairs can be allowed only for 180 days, whereas the Petitioner has been absent for more than three years. Further, a charge memo, dated
25.3.2010 was also referred to.
The Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, dated 11.4.2011. In the reply affidavit, it was claimed that the Petitioner will be completing the course in
June, 2011 and that the rejection order was antedated and communicated to the Petitioner only on 1.8.2008. Even before the rejection order, the
Petitioner had joined the course. It was also stated that under the relevant rule, certain relaxation can be granted for grant of study leave and that
even officers who are holding Group C post can go for study leave. It is also stated that there is no valid ground for rejecting the Petitioner''s
request for study leave. There cannot be discrimination in the matter of getting permission for study leave being confined only to Group A and
Group B posts.
The Petitioner had also filed an additional affidavit in support of M.P. No. 1 of 2011 in which he had stated that he will be completing the course
in June, 2011 and that he intends to practice as a lawyer. It was due to non receipt of any letter from the third Respondent, he had joined the
course. The third Respondent is fully empowered to grant permission as per letter dated 22.6.1993 issued by the P&AR Department. In that
letter, the Government has delegated its powers to subordinate officers to grant permission to avail leave for doing courses privately. In paragraph
2 of the letter, it was stated as follows:
2.I am, therefore, to inform that the power to grant permission to Government servants who are desirous of acquiring higher qualifications by
appearing privately, now vested with the Heads of Department as per the orders in the Government Order referred to above may be delegated to
the District Controlling Officers like Joint Director/Deputy Director, as the case may be.
Since the Petitioner had applied well before his joining and there was no reply inspite of telegraphic reminder, he is entitled to join the course. In
terms of G.O. Ms. No. 200, P&AR Department, dated 19.4.1996, if no order according such permission is issued within a period of 15 days, it
shall be deemed that the Head of the Department had granted permission for joining correspondence course or evening college. The Petitioner
earlier filed W.P. No. 3645 of 2011 seeking for a direction to consider his review petitions, dated 18.11.2010 and 21.01.2011 regarding his
voluntary retirement. This Court by an order, dated 18.2.2011 had directed his representation to be considered.
In the light of the legal positions and the fact that the Petitioner is going to complete his LL.B Course and also the fact that the Petitioner has
given an application to go on voluntary retirement, this Court has no hesitation to allow the writ petition made by the Petitioner and to declare that
the Petitioner''s request for undergoing the course has been deemed to have been granted as no reply has been sent within the time stipulated by
G.O. Ms. No. 200, P&AR Department, dated 19.4.1996. The Petitioner''s absence from the post shall be considered only on the basis of No
Work, No Pay. He cannot claim any salary as if leave has been granted by the Respondents. Since the Petitioner having filed a sworn affidavit
before this Court that he intends to practice law and not to continue in the Government service and also the fact that he is also going to complete
his three years course, this Court is constrained to take such a decision. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand allowed as per the revised prayer.
However, there will be no order as to costs.