1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6186/2008 SMT. SUNNI JOHN & ANR. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. DATE OF ORDER : 21.10.2009. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. I.R. Choudhary for the petitioners. Mr. Y.P. Khileree for the respondents. While serving as Auxiliary Nursing Midwife, the petitioners undergone General Nursing Training Course for a term of three years from the month of April 2002. The respondents allowed study leave to the petitioners for undergoing such training. As per the petitioners, the period in which they acquired training is required to be treated as deputation with pay and not the study leave. To substantiate the contention, reliance is placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Iqbal Ahmed Afridi vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. Decided on February 15, 2000. In the case aforesaid, this Court while placing reliance upon Circulars dated June 25, 1960, September 21, 1977 and September 27, 1977 held that in- service candidates, who were admitted in Nursing Course, including General Nursing Course have to be treated on deputation with full salary. It is stated that the petitioners were required to discharge their duties as regular nursing staff and with uniform during the period aforesaid, as such, the law laid down in the case of Iqbal Ahmed Afridi (supra) is having absolute application on them. 2 Per contra, stand of the respondents is that the State Government, while exercising powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Rajasthan Nurses, Meidwives, health Visitors and A.N.M. Registration Act, 1964 (Rajasthan Act No.9 of 1964) framed the General Nursing Training Course Rules, 1990 and as per sub-rule (ii) of Rule 9 of the Rules aforesaid, there shall be no deputation for Government servants, if selected for General Nursing Training. They shall have to take any leave which is permissible to them. According to learned counsel for the respondents, in view of sub-rule (ii) of the Rules of 1990, the training period of the petitioners cannot be treated as deputation, therefore, the period aforesaid was rightly treated as the period of leave availed by the petitioners. A reliance is also placed by learned counsel for the respondents upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6283 of 2001 (Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No.6037 of 1999) State of Rajasthan vs. Sushil Sharma, wherein it was held that any person who goes on study leave cannot be treated to be on deputation and such a person also cannot claim equality merely because some other officers have been given unwarranted favour. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions. True it is, in Iqbal Ahmed Afridi's case (supra), this Court held that in-service candidates, who were admittedly in different Nursing Courses including General Nursing Course should be treated on deputation with full salary, but in the case aforesaid, 3 Rule 9 of the Rules of 1990 was not taken into consideration. The petitioners admittedly availed training as per Rules of 1990 as in-service candidates and sub-rule (ii) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1990 in most unambiguous terms provided that “there shall be no deputation for Government servant, if selected. They shall have to take any leave which is permissible to him/her”. In view of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 9 aforesaid, the period in which the petitioners availed training cannot be treated as deputation. If the respondents have treated the period of training as deputation for some other persons, then too, that does not create any right for the petitioners to claim equality, as this Court cannot perpetuate an illegality. In view of the discussions made above, I do not find any merit in this petition for writ. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/