IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT GWALIOR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

<>

ON THE 25

<>

th

<>

OF FEBRUARY, 2026

<>

WRIT PETITION No. 21103 of 2022

<>

ANIL KUMAR SHARMA

<>

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Prashant Singh Kaurav - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sohit Mishra- GA for the respondents/State.

ORDER

<>

Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated

31/8/2022 (Annexure P/1), whereby, the NOC granted to him earlier for

pursuing Ph.D. course, has been cancelled. He has also prayed for a

direction to respondents to extend him the benefit of study leave as per

Circular dated 7/10/2015 and as per M.P. Civil Services (Leave) Rules,

1977.

2. Petitioner is possessed of B.E. (Electricals), M.Tech. (Electricals)

qualifications. He was initially appointed on the post of Lecturer (Electricals)

on 8/10/2010 in Govt. Polytechnic College, Nowgong, Chattarpur. The

appointment was on contract for a period of three years. On completion of

three years, he was regularized in service w.e.f. 2/11/2013 vide order dated

25/4/2015.

3. In order to pursue Ph.D. course, petitioner applied for permission

1 WP-21103-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7647

from the Principal of the College on 31/3/2022. The Principal accorded

permission vide letter dated 27/4/2022. The permission was however subject

to Clause अ,अ(1),अ(2) of Circular dated 7/10/2015 and the M.P. Civil

Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 (for short "Rules of 1977"). The petitioner

contends that, based upon NOC given by Principal of Nowgong College, he

joined the Ph.D. course and started pursuing the same in Tagore University,

Raisen.

4. Petitioner was then sent on deputation on 20/05/2022 to Govt.

Polytechnic College, Datia. This was done pursuant to the instructions issued

by the Directorate of Technical Education and Skill Development

Department. Petitioner accordingly joined in the College at Datia and is

presently posted there. The Principal of the College at Nowgong wrote to the

Principal of College at Datia on 16/6/2022 expressing his no objection, if the

petitioner is permitted to pursue his Ph.D. Course. This was done in view of

the fact that permitting the petitioner to pursue course may effect the teaching

work of the College at Datia.

5. Principal of the College, thereafter issued the impugned

communication dated 31/8/2022 (Annexure P/1), whereby, the permission

granted by him earlier has been cancelled. This has been done in view of

certain instructions issued by the Directorate vide Circular dated 4/8/2022.

Challenging this communication, petitioner has filed this writ petition

praying for aforementioned reliefs.

6. Challenging the impugned action of the respondents, learned

counsel for the petitioner argued that cancellation of NOC based upon the

2 WP-21103-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7647

circular issued subsequently is illegal inasmuch as the Circular issued on

4/8/2022 would not have the retrospective effect. It is his submission that no

reason has been assigned to reject the NOC to the petitioner and further that

since the petitioner is now not working in the College at Nowgong,

petitioner's going on study leave would not adversely effect the work at

Nowgong. He further submitted that Circular dated 7/10/2015 provides for

engaging guest faculty in case any permanent faculty has gone on study

leave. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned communication

has been issued by the respondent no.6 without any logic and by

misinterpreting the circular dated 4/8/2022.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Ph.D.

course would be beneficial for the petitioner for his career advancement

inasmuch as Ph.D. is one of the qualification for further promotion. He

submitted that as per Rule 42 of the Leave Rules, 1977, he is eligible and

entitled for study leave for which the NOC was already issued by respondent

no.6 in his favour. He further submitted that acting upon the NOC, the

petitioner has taken admission to pursue Ph.D. course and has also deposited

fees for the same. Therefore, cancellation of NOC is not permissible. It is his

further submission that since petitioner is presently working in College at

Datia, respondent no.6 was not having jurisdiction to cancel the NOC. With

the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting

aside of the impugned communication and for restoring the permission to

pursue his Ph.D. course.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State refuted the

3 WP-21103-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7647

submissions made by petitioner's counsel. It is his submission that the study

leave is governed by Chapter VI of Leave Rules, 1977 and so long as the

leave is not sanctioned, the petitioner was not supposed to join any course. It

is his further submission that merely grant of NOC by respondent no.6 does

not confer any right to avail study leave on the petitioner inasmuch as the

leave was to be sanctioned by the Directorate of the Department and not by

respondent no.6. Learned counsel also submitted that since the study leave

was not sanctioned to the petitioner, the provisions of Circular dated

4/8/2022 were very much applicable in his case also and as per the said

circular, the preference is to be given to those candidates who wish to pursue

their Master's degree. It is his further submission that other candidates who

wish to pursue Master's degree have been granted study leave, and therefore,

the petitioner cannot ask for study leave as of right. Learned counsel for the

State thus prayed for dismissal of the petition.

9. Considered the arguments and perused the record.

10. Facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner while working

as Lecturer in the College at Nowgong applied for permission to pursue his

Ph.D. course. The permission was granted by respondent no.6, however, the

same was subject to fulfilment of Clause Clause अ, अ(1), अ(2) of Circular

dated 7/10/2015 as also the provisions of Leave Rules, 1977. Thus, the

permission was not final and the petitioner was required to get the study

leave sanctioned. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent on deputation to College

at Datia on 20/5/2022. The petitioner alleges that based upon the NOC given

by respondent no.6, he proceeded to pursue his Ph.D. court. However, from

4 WP-21103-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7647

the records, it is not clear as to when he joined the course. However, as

alleged by petitioner, as on date, he is pursuing Ph.D. Course. It is also a fact

that except NOC given by respondent no.6, no study leave is sanctioned to

the petitioner.

11. Grant of leave to a Govt. servant is governed by the provisions of

Leave Rules, 1977. As was held by this Court in AIR 1960 MP 252, grant of

leave, including study leave, is not a right of any employee or the Govt.

servant. It is the privilege to be extended to the employee depending upon

the facts and circumstances of the case and it cannot be claimed by any

employee as a matter of right.

12. Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules provides that leave cannot be claimed

as of right. Further, Rule 42 provides for conditions for grant of study leave,

which reads as under:-

"42. Conditions for grant of study leave. (1)

<>

Subject to the

conditions specified in these rules, study leave may be granted to a

Government servant with due regard to the exigencies of public

service to enable him to undergo, in or out of India, a special

course of study consisting of higher studies or specialised training

in a professional or a technical subject having a direct and close

connection with the sphere of his duty.

(2)

<>

Study leave may also be granted :-

(i)

<>

for a course of training or study tour in which a Government

servant may not attend a regular academic or semi-academic

course if the course of training or the study tour is certified to be

of definite advantage to Government from the point of view of

public interest and is relate to the sphere of duties of Government

servant; and

(ii)

<>

for the purpose of study connected with the framework or

5 WP-21103-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7647

background of public administration, subject to the conditions

that-

(a) the particular study or study tour should be approved by the

authority competent to sanction study leave; and

(b) the Government servant should be required to submit on his

return, a full report of the work done by him while on study leave.

(iii)

<>

for the studies which may not be closely or directly connected

with the work of the Government servant, but which are capable

of widening his mind in a manner likely to improve his abilities as

a civil servant and to equip him better to collaborate with those

employed in other branches of the public service.

(3)

<>

Study leave shall not be granted unless

(i) it is certified by the Administrative Department that the

proposed course of study or training shall be of definite advantage

from the point of view of public interest;

(ii) it is for prosecution of studies in subjects other than academic

or literary subjects; and

(iii) the Economic Affairs Department of the Government of India,

Ministry of Finance agree to the release of foreign exchange

involved in the grant of study leave, if such leave is out of India

(4)

<>

[Study leave shall not ordinarily be granted to a Government

servant-

(i) who has not been registered in Government service,

(ii) who has rendered less than 5 years service under Government;

including service in ad hoc capacity,

(iii) who is due to retire or has the option to retire from the

Government service within three years on the date on which he is

expected to return to duty after the expiry of the leave].

(5)

<>

Study leave shall not be granted to Government servant with

such frequency as to remove him from contact with his regular

work or to cause cadre difficulties owing to the absence on leave."

13. When the provisions of Rule 42 are X-rayed, following position

6 WP-21103-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7647

emerges:

i. sub-section (1) of Section 42 provides that study leave may be

granted to a Govt. servant with due regard to exigency of public

service;

ii. sub-section (2)(i) of Section 42 provides that study leave may

be granted to a Govt. servant for a course of training or study tour

which is certified to be definite advantage to Govt. from point of view

of public interest;

iii. sub-section (3)(i) of Section 42 prohibits grant of study leave

to a Govt. servant unless the proposed course of study or training

is certified by Administrative department to be definite advantage to

Govt. from point of view of public interest.

From reading aforesaid provisions of Rule 42, it comes out loud and

clear that the purpose of proposed course of study or training should be in

the interest of Govt. from point of view of public interest. Meaning thereby,

the career advancement of Govt. servant is not the paramount consideration.

14. Further Rule 43 provides that the study leave can be granted to a

Govt. servant by Administrative Department. For purposes of petitioner, the

Administrative department is the Directorate of Technical Education and

Skill Development Department who was competent to sanction study leave.

15. The Directorate of Technical Education and Skill Development

Department issued an order dated 7/10/2015 (Annexure P/5) providing for

guidelines for purposes of grant of study leave. The petitioner has also placed

reliance upon the guidelines. Clause अ (ii)(2) of the said circular reads

7 WP-21103-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7647

under:-

"2. उPच अ2ययन अवकाश हेतु शैPSणक सB के 'ारंभ मh िशPक उPच

अ2ययन हेतु चयन के समथ6न मh द.तावेज स3हत अपना आवेदन

संबंिधत सं.था के 'ाचाय6 के मा2यम से सं◌ं◌ंचलक तकनीकp िशPा,

म2य'देश को '.तुत करhगे। संचालक तकनीकp िशPा, म2य'देश कp

अनुशंसा के आधार पर शासन :ारा अ2ययन अवकाश हेतु .वीकृित

जारg 3कये जाने पर vवचार 3कया जायेगा। Sजन िशPक- कp पदोdनित /

उPच वेतनमान 'ा/ करने कp अहता6 उPच अ2ययन 'ा/ न करने कp

वजह से बािधत हो रहg है उनके अ2ययन अवकाश .वीकृित 'करण- पर

'ाथिमकता के आधार पर vवचार 3कया जायेगा ।"

16. A perusal of the aforesaid clause shows that the application for

leave of the petitioner was to travel through Principal of the College to

Director of Technical Education and Skill Development Department. The

Director was then required to make his recommendation based on which, the

State Govt. could have sanctioned study leave to the petitioner. In view of

the aforesaid clause, the Principal of the College was therefore, not

competent to sanction the study leave. He has therefore, only granted his

NOC which could only mean that the petitioner can be spared from the

College. The NOC by him was thus, only the first step towards processing of

the application for study leave. No right accrued in favour of petitioner to

proceed for pursuing his course on the basis of NOC granted by respondent

no.6.

17. The submission of the petitioner's counsel that acting upon the

aforesaid NOC granted by respondent no.6, the petitioner deposited the fees

for the course and has taken admission for the same. This is found to be

factually incorrect. The study fee receipt filed as Annexure P/9 shows that

8 WP-21103-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7647

the petitioner had deposited the fees on 30/3/2022, whereas, NOC was

granted by respondent no.6 on 27/4/2022. Meaning thereby, the petitioner

has already taken admission for Ph.D. course even prior to grant of NOC by

respondent no. 6. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that the petitioner changed

his position based upon NOC granted by respondent no.6.

18. Since, the NOC granted by respondent no. 6 was not a final order

sanctioning study leave, the instructions issued by respondent no.1 on

4/8/2022 were very much applicable in the petitioner's case. This is also

because the leave is not a right of a Govt. servant and so long as the leave is

not sanctioned, the instructions issued by the competent authority before

such sanction, are required to be adhered to. The Circular issued by

respondent no.1 on 4/8/2022 gives preference to those who wish to pursue

Ph.D. degree. The respondents have filed documents alongwith the return to

show that other incumbents from the College at Nowgong as also from the

College at Datia have applied for study leave to pursue their Master's degree.

Therefore, as per the instructions issued by respondent no.1 on 4/8/2022, the

other incumbents get preference over the petitioner.

19. The submission of petitioner that the Ph.D. course is necessary for

his career advancement, is also not acceptable. As discussed above, Rule 42

provides for grant of study leave to a Govt. servant when such proposed

study or training is beneficial for the Govt. from point of view of public

interest. The interest of Govt. servant may be the secondary consideration.

The respondent no.6 while granting NOC, nowhere opined that the Ph.D.

course of petitioner is for the advantage of the Govt.

9 WP-21103-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7647

20. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court considered somewhat

similar situation in the case of Chaman Kumar vs. University of

<>

Delhi

<>

reported in 2012 SCC Online Del. 4734

<>

. It was also a case where the

incumbent proceeded to pursue Ph.D. course based upon permission granted

by Principal of the College. This was found to be beyond competence of

Principal. The Division Bench held as under:

"21.

<>

Though we must admit that the thought of letting the

appellant complete his higher education and of this Court not

coming in the way thereof has crossed our minds also but the

logical side of our brain, for the following reasons, tells us to

decide otherwise.

i. As the term ‘study leave’ denotes, it is a permission for absence

from employment or duty or a authorized absence and thus cannot

be claimed as a matter of right. Without permission or

authorization there can be no study leave.

ii. Merely because an employee may be eligible for leave does not

bind the employer to grant such leave. The employer, in taking

decision on an application of leave is entitled to consider, not only

the eligibility of the employee for leave but also other factors as to

its own functioning and if does not find it convenient or practical

or conducive to its own affairs to grant leave, is entitled to refuse

the same. It is the prerogative of the employer to act according to

the exigencies of the situation, keeping in view the best interest of

administration. The paramount consideration in granting leave, for

an educational institution, is not only the convenience of the

teacher but the welfare of the students. The authority which is to

sanction leave, can take into account all the relevant facts and

either grant or refuse leave.

iii. The employer herein being amenable to writ jurisdiction, this

Court, in exercise of powers of judicial review is only to see

10 WP-21103-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7647

whether refusal of the leave can be said to be arbitrary,

discriminatory or malafide and is otherwise to not sit in appeal

over the decision of the employer in this regard. It is after all the

employer who has to manage its affairs and decide whether it is

convenient or not to grant leave of absence and the Court cannot

interfere therewith.

iv. Though it is respondent no. 2 College which had employed the

appellant but it can not be lost sight of that the entire emoluments

etc. of the appellant are borne by the University and not by the

respondent no. 2 College. It cannot further be lost sight of that the

respondent no. 2 College under the terms of its affiliation with the

University is to function as per the Rules and Regulations of the

University and in fact the performance of the duties by the

appellant during the term of his employment albeit with the

respondent no. 2 College is governed by the Rules and Regulation

of the University. It yet further cannot be lost sight of that it was

the University which had at its own cost and expense introduced

the appellant to the foreign University.

v. The Faculty Training Programme under which the University at

its own expense had sponsored Masters Course in a foreign

University of the appellant and had during the duration thereof

also continued to disburse the pay and allowance of the appellant,

was for the benefit of the University and its students. Towards the

said goal only it was a condition of the same that the appellant on

completion of the Masters Course would return and serve the

University/College i.e. teach its students for a continuous period of

three years.

vi. Knowledge to be imbibed by the appellant in the said Faculty

Training Programme was intended to be shared by the appellant

with other faculty members and students in the next three years

after return. The said knowledge, in today's fast paced world of

knowledge explosion may well become otiose or redundant or

obsolete in the further 42 months for which the appellant desires to

11 WP-21103-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7647

remain away, defeating the very purpose for which the University

sponsored the appellant for the Masters Course. Not only so, the

further qualifications of Ph.D. which the appellant now seeks to

achieve for himself may not even leave the appellant suitable/fit to

teach the students for whom he has been employed, upsetting the

entire scheme of faculty/staff assessment of the University.

vii. Thus, objection by the University to the respondent no. 2

College granting study leave to the appellant, thereby letting the

appellant off his obligation under the agreement with the

University cannot be said to be arbitrary or whimsical or malafide.

There is in any case no plea thereof.

viii. We also find merit in the contention of the University as to

the conduct of the appellant. The appellant as far back as in

October, 2011 i.e. much before applying for admission to Ph.D.

Proramme or joining the same was in no unclear terms told that he

could not do so. The appellant inspite of the same surreptitiously

obtained the study leave from the respondent no. 2 College in

breach of his obligation under the agreement with the University.

ix. Considering the volume of staff and faculty of the University,

consideration on sympathetic grounds in favour of one can have a

cascading effect and cause discipline issues.

x. The respondent no. 2 College is also not claiming to be,

independently of the University and in spite of the agreement of

the appellant with the University being entitled to grant such study

leave to the appellant and immediately on objection being taken

by the University has cancelled the study leave of the appellant.

xi. The Ph.D. Course of the appellant is of 42 months duration. On

the contrary the study leave granted by the respondent no. 2

College is of 12 months only. Moreover, the maximum study

leave even under the Rules of the University can be of three years

i.e. 36 months only and in which time Ph.D. Course would not be

completed. For this reason also the claim of the appellant is

misconceived.

12 WP-21103-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7647

xii. The respondent no. 2 College is already shown to have been

forced to appoint another Assistant Professor against the leave

vacancy of the appellant. The University will thus stand burdened

with the emoluments of the said replacement also. Not only so it is

found that replacement vacancies for such long duration

themselves become a cause for further litigation.

xiii. It is even otherwise an established principle that this Court in

exercise of powers of judicial review will not interfere

unnecessarily with the functioning of the educational institutions.

[Director (Studies) v. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan 2008 (14) SCALE

554 and recently reiterated in Sanchit Bansal v. The Joint

Admission Board, (2012) 1 SCC 157]."

Following Delhi High Court, the Chattisgarh High Court also dealt

with the issue in similar manner in the case of Ganesh Prasad Shukla vs.

<>

Guru Ghasidas Central University Bilaspur

<>

reported in 2018 SCC Online

<>

1050

<>

. The Court held thus:

"11.

<>

The petitioner is claiming the study leave as a matter of right

relying upon record of minutes of meeting dated 17.12.2014 of the

committee constituted by the Executive Council of the University

and subsequently notified. It is neither a statute nor having force of

law or ordinance or regulation. The University, in order to

regulate the grant of study leave to the University

officers/teachers, has devised its own internal mechanism, so that

the application for study leave can be considered properly and be

granted as the exigencies of service may require. But that internal

mechanism devised by University will not create any legal and

enforceable right in favour of any officer of university to claim

that study leave as a matter of right.

12

<>

. Following the principles of laid down by the Delhi High Court

in Chaman Kumar (supra), if the facts of the present case are

13 WP-21103-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7647

examined, it is quite vivid that though at present the total available

strength of Assistant Professors in the said department is 7 and

petitioner is claiming study leave on the basis of memo dated

17.12.2014 which was notified subsequently, but fact remains that

out of total sanctioned strength of 18 faculty members only 7

members are presently working there, as Mr. Atul Kumar Sahu,

Assistant Professor is already on study leave, which is less than

50% of the strength and that the Department of Industrial

Production and Engineering of the University is running short of

Assistant Professors. The petitioner may or may not be eligible for

study leave as per memo dated 17.12.2014, but the fact remains

that the University has to look into and has to act according to the

exigencies of the situation and particularly the best interest of the

students of the University, as the University has claimed shortage

of faculty members in the said department, which is apparent on

record also, and only for the convenience of the petitioner for

<>

advancement of his career or for better promotional prospect,

<>

cannot be a ground to grant study leave as the welfare and best

<>

interest of students is equally important and the name and

<>

reputation of the University is also equally important which rests

<>

on the availability of regular faculty members

<>

. In view of the

above facts, grant of such a leave is only a privilege to be

extended by the University to its officers. It cannot be claimed as a

matter of right by the petitioner. I respectfully agree with the view

expressed by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Chaman

Kumar (supra) and view expressed by the High Court of M.P.

in Horace Ross (supra) which is binding on this Court. It is for the

University to manage his own affairs particularly to run the

University which is a Central University constituted under

the Central Universities Act, 2009 and the Court cannot sit as an

Appellate Authority over the decision of the University

particularly which has been taken by the School Board consisting

of eminent Professor(s) and reputed Assistant Professor(s) of the

14 WP-21103-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7647

Central University on the basis of material available on record."

21. I respectfully concur with the view expressed by Division Bench

of Delhi High Court as also by the Single Bench of Chattisgarh High Court.

It is held that the petitioner cannot claim study leave as of right and while

dealing with his request, the Govt. was required to consider the interest of

College as also the fact as to whether the proposed study is for advantage of

Govt. or not. It is further held that the petitioner could not have proceeded to

pursue the course based upon NOC granted by Principal of College without

waiting for sanction of study leave by Govt. which is competent for the

same. It is also held that, since the study leave is not a right, the instructions

issued on 4/8/2022 i.e. after grant of NOC by respondent no.6, were

applicable and based upon such instructions, cancellation of NOC by

respondent no.6 is held to be legal and valid.

22. In view of the aforesaid, the cancellation of NOC by respondent

no.6 based upon the instructions issued on 4/8/2022 is upheld. Thus, no

interference can be made with the impugned communication dated

31/8/2022.

23. At last, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that for

pursuing Ph.D. the petitioner is not required to continuously attend the course

and he was required to attend the course intermittently. The same could be

adjusted against other leave available to the leave account of petitioner. The

submission so made is considered. Since, there is no pleading to this effect in

writ petition and consequently, no response in reply, the same cannot be

adjudicated in this petition. Even otherwise, this issue needs to be addressed

15 WP-21103-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7647

(ASHISH SHROTI)

<>

JUDGE

<>

by the Govt. The petitioner is, therefore, at liberty to approach competent

authority in this regard in accordance with law.

24. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

JPS/-

16 WP-21103-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7647