HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 785 of 2025 (S/S) Bharti Prakash ….......Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos.1 to 5. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 7.12.2024 passed by respondent no.3 contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the study leave to the petitioner from 10.04.2023 to 17.06.2023 with half salary and also grant all consequential service benefits such as arrears of salary of said period, selection grade, pay fixation etc. iii) Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. iv) To award the cost of the petitions in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a Lecturer (Physics) in Government Inter College, Binsaun, Chakrata, District Dehradun. She applied for study leave for pursuing doctorate in education. She was granted NOC by the respondents authorities, but study leave is not being sanctioned and that has been denied by the impugned order dated 07.12.2024. 4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment 2 of this Court dated 15.03.2024, passed in WPSS No.411 of 2024, Shobha Budhlakoti Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that, according to the instructions, the department is still examining, as to whether the matter is covered by the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Shobha Budhlakoti (supra). 6. In the case of Shobha Budhlakoti (supra), the petitioner was Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade in Hindi. She wanted to pursue her Ph.D. course in Hindi. She was provided NOC, but subsequently, study leave was not granted. The Court in that case interpreted Rule 84 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules and held that this Rule is to be constituted in its letter and spirit and the Rule cannot be restricted only the scientific, technical and similar problems to undergo special courses of instruction. It should be construed liberally and to give meaning to it. 7. In the instant matter also, the applicant has applied for doctorate in education. She is Lecturer (Physics). Rule 84 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules does not prohibit grant of study leave in such matters. In fact, the controversy is covered by the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Shobha Budhlakoti (supra). 8. Since, the matter is covered, instant petition is decided in terms of the judgment dated 15.03.2024, passed in WPSS No.411 of 2024, Shobha Budhlakoti Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 12.08.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686df4d 1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A8 4B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.08.19 15:08:51 +05'30'