Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri Ravi Prakash, was appointed as a Primary School Teacher. On his request, he was sent to study the Hindi Shikshan Parangath course as an in-service candidate along with other teachers. The Commissioner of Public Instructions passed an order dated 05.11.2012 permitting the petitioner and 18 other teachers for further studies, sanctioning study leave for a period of ten months with salary. The petitioner undertook the examination during April-May 2014 and succeeded in 8 out of 9 subjects. However, permission was not granted to the petitioner to take up the remaining subject. The petitioner approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his application. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court observed that the petitioner had already completed the course except for one subject and that requiring him to take study leave again would be unreasonable. The court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the remaining subject without insisting on further study leave.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Study Leave - Permission to Appear for Examination - The petitioner, a Primary School Teacher, was granted study leave for ten months to pursue Hindi Shikshan Parangath course. He passed eight out of nine subjects. The respondents refused permission to appear for the remaining subject without further study leave. The High Court held that since the petitioner had already completed the course except for one subject, requiring him to take study leave again would be unreasonable and against the purpose of the study leave. The court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the examination without insisting on further study leave. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who was granted study leave for ten months and successfully completed eight out of nine subjects in the Hindi Shikshan Parangath course, is entitled to permission to appear for the remaining subject without being required to take further study leave.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dated 13.07.2016 and 30.05.2017, and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the remaining subject without insisting on further study leave.
Law Points
- Study leave
- permission to appear for examination
- service conditions
- administrative discretion
- legitimate expectation
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (06) 55
Writ Petition No.47858 of 2017 (S-KSAT)
L. Narayana Swamy, R. Devdas
Sri. N. P. Kallesha Gowda (for petitioner), Smt. A. Anitha, HCGP (for respondents)
The State of Karnataka, The Commissioner, Department of Public Instructions, The Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Hassan District, Block Education Officer, Department of Public Instructions, Alur Taluk
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's application for permission to appear for the remaining subject in the Hindi Shikshan Parangath course.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the orders of the Tribunal and to direct the respondents to permit him to appear for the remaining subject without insisting on further study leave.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was not permitted to appear for the remaining subject in the Hindi Shikshan Parangath course after having passed eight out of nine subjects during the study leave period.
Previous Decisions
The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's application in Application No.3198/2016 on 13.07.2016 and the review application in Review Application No.19/2017 on 30.05.2017.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to permission to appear for the remaining subject without being required to take further study leave.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that he had already completed the course except for one subject and that requiring him to take study leave again would be unreasonable.
The respondents argued that the petitioner was granted study leave for ten months and that he should have completed the course within that period.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the petitioner had already completed the course except for one subject, requiring him to take study leave again would be unreasonable and against the purpose of the study leave. The respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to appear for the examination without insisting on further study leave.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner herein was appointed as Primary School Teacher.
The Commissioner of Public Instructions had passed an order dated 05.11.2012, permitting the petitioner and 18 other Teachers for further studies, while all such persons were sanctioned study leave for a period of ten months for which period, salary was also granted.
The petitioner herein undertook the examination during April-May, 2014 and succeeded in 8 out of 9 subjects.
Since permission was not granted to the petitioner to take up the remaining subject, the petitioner approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal.
The Tribunal dismissed the application and the review petition.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed as Primary School Teacher. On his request, he was sent to study Hindi Shikshan Parangath course. The Commissioner of Public Instructions passed an order dated 05.11.2012 permitting the petitioner and 18 other teachers for further studies, sanctioning study leave for ten months with salary. The petitioner undertook the examination during April-May 2014 and succeeded in 8 out of 9 subjects. Permission was not granted to take the remaining subject. The petitioner filed Application No.3198/2016 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed on 13.07.2016. A review application in Review Application No.19/2017 was also dismissed on 30.05.2017. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No.47858 of 2017 before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
