CWP 4061/2K //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.4061/2000 State of Raj. & (2) Ors. Versus Shri Surendra Kumar & Anr. Date of Order ::: 10/04/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Shivlal Meena, Dy.Govt.Advocate, for petitioners State Mr. CP Sharma, for the respondent No.1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the judgment dated 12/10/1999 Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (“Tribunal”) whereby the petitioner was directed to grant benefit of commuted leave to the respondent to which he was entitled in terms of R.93(2)(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules (“RSR”). Respondent No.1 was serving as Deputy Inspector of School (Physical Education), Ajmer. He applied for permission to take admission in M.Phil from Kurukshetra University. After considering his application permission was granted vide order dt.19/05/98, to undergo M.Phil through correspondence. Since respondent No.1 was undergoing M.Phil, he applied for commuted leave, which was declined by the petitioner vide order dated 31/07/1998 on the premise that such leave can CWP 4061/2K //2// be granted to the applicant under R.93 (2)(II) of the RSR, if sanctioning authority is satisfied that the study leave desired by the employee is in public interest. Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Tribunal. After adjudication, it was observed that permission for study was granted by Competent Authority; obviously such permissions are granted in public interest and once permission for study has been granted to the employee/ applicant, ordinarily benefit of commuted leave is not to be refused unless there are reasons forthcoming. Even, in the reply filed by the department before the Tribunal, no justification came forward declining commuted leave applied for by the employee and the petitioner Department came only with the plea that it is the satisfaction of sanctioning authority, It is true that discretion vests with sanctioning authority but it is always to be exercised judiciously and the reasons for rejection are always to be disclosed, which were neither placed before the Tribunal nor before this Court. Learned Tribunal, after taking note of R.93(2)(ii) of RSR observed that since respondent No.1 was having leave to his credit, ordinarily is not to be refused CWP 4061/2K //3// particularly when permission for study was granted by competent authority. This Court has gone through the finding recorded under order impugned, and does not find manifest error which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed alongwith stay petition. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. Bharti/p.3/4061CW2K-1004.doc