IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.8005/2008 Decided on:14.5.2009 Tulsi Ram Chauhan. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. yes. For the petitioner : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner submitted an application for the grant of study leave for pursuing B.Sc. Horticulture from the Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, District Solan. The application was submitted in the month of May, 2000. The application submitted by the petitioner was favourably considered and he was nominated as in-service candidate to undergo B.Sc. Horticulture five years degree course from session 2000-2001. He was granted three years study leave on 19.7.2000. He joined the course in the Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, District Solan for the session 2000-2001. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes. 2 He came to know in June, 2001 that the period of study leave has been reduced from three years to two years. He submitted representation to the Director Horticulture on 21.6.2001. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected by the Special Secretary (Horticulture) on 25.8.2001 on the basis of letter dated 19.7.2000 (Annexure R-1). Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioner has joined the course as in-service candidate on the basis of Annexure A-2 dated 19.7.2000. He then contended that the petitioner was entitled to get three years study leave as per letter dated 22.8.1997. He further contended that three years study leave was sanctioned on 19.7.2000 and the same could not be reduced to two years on the basis of Annexure R-1 dated 19.7.2000. He lastly contended that the respondents were estopped from reducing the period of study leave from three years to two years since the petitioner has acted to his detriment after joining the course. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was entitled to two years study leave as per letter dated 19.7.2000 and not three years on the basis of letter dated 22.8.1997. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioner was nominated for undergoing five years B.Sc. degree course from the Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, District Solan. He was sanctioned study leave for three years as per Annexure-2. He joined the course. The course commenced on 1.8.2000. The study leave was reduced from three years to two years. He made representation against the arbitrary decision of the State Government. His representation was rejected as per Annexure A-4. The 3 period of study leave has been reduced from three years purportedly on the basis of Annexure R-1 dated 19.7.2000. The reason assigned for reducing the period of study leave from three years to two years is that the letter dated 22.8.1997 i.e. Annexure A-1 stood withdrawn with immediate effect. The Court is of the considered opinion that once the petitioner has been sanctioned study leave for three years and he has proceeded to join the course and in fact joined the course, the respondents were estopped from reducing the period from three years to two years. The State was aware of the letter dated 22.8.1997 on the basis of which the petitioner had been granted three years study leave. The petitioner on the basis of the promise held out to him by sanctioning him the study leave to three years had changed his position to his detriment by joining the course. In case he was apprised that the study leave would be two years instead of three years, he could refuse to join the course. The study leave had been sanctioned on 19.7.2000 and on the same day vide Annexure A-4 letter dated 22.8.1997 has been withdrawn. The petitioner and similarly situate persons have right to improve their educational qualification. The purpose of granting three years leave as per Annexure A-1 dated 22.8.1997 was to encourage the in-service employees to acquire higher education in a professional or technical subject having a direct and close connection with the sphere of duties of a Government servant. The petitioner was working in the Horticulture Department and his acquiring higher qualification definitely had close connection with the sphere of his duties. In fact, the duration of the course was five years and the petitioner was only sanctioned three years study leave. In case the respondents wanted to restrict the study leave, they could do it for future. Their action could not affect the petitioner and similarly situate persons on the basis of Annexure 4 A-2, who had joined the courses. A bare perusal of Annexure R-1 dated 19.7.2000 also suggests that the candidates who were granted permission of three years as per letter dated 22.8.1997, their cases were not to be reopened. The persons, like the petitioner, who had joined the course in the year 2000 and the persons who had joined the course before them constitute a homogenous class. In case letter dated 19.7.2000 is read strictly, it will create a class within a class. The State has to apply the policy uniformly. There could not be any discrimination while granting the study leave for acquiring higher qualification. In case the contents of letter dated 19.7.2000 (Annexure R-1) are construed narrowly, it will suggest that one set of candidates would get benefit of the letter dated 22.8.1997 and the period of study leave would be three years, however, qua the petitioner it would be reduced to two years. This is not permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This will also cause invidious discrimination. The petitioner is to be treated at par with the candidates qua whom the benefit of letter dated 22.8.1997 has been restored by not reducing their study leave from three years to two years. The letter dated 19.7.2000 shall apply prospectively and cannot disturb the vested and acquired rights of the petitioner Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-4 dated 25.8.2001 and Annexure R-1 dated 19.7.2000 are quashed and set aside. It is declared that the petitioner will be held entitled to study leave as per Annexure A-2 dated 19.7.2000. No costs. 14.5. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*