Right To Education | Three-Year Service Requirement No Bar For Government Employees Seeking Distance Mode Education : Punjab And Haryana High Court
Isabella Mariam
The Punjab and Haryana High Court Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that a government employee cannot be denied permission to pursue higher education through distance mode solely on the ground of not completing three years of service, affirming that the right to education flows directly from Article 21 of the Constitution as an inalienable human right. The Court set aside the rejection order passed against a Veterinary Livestock Development Assistant who had sought permission to enroll in a Bachelor of Arts programme through distance education, having given an undertaking that he would not seek study leave or allow his studies to affect his official duties.
The petitioner, appointed as a Veterinary Livestock Development Assistant on 09.02.2024 pursuant to a selection process conducted by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, joined duty on 15.02.2024. At the time of appointment, he had completed 10th and +2 qualifications. On 29.05.2024, he submitted a representation seeking permission to enroll in a Bachelor of Arts through Distance Education Mode without availing study leave. An undertaking was furnished stating that the course would not affect official duties and that no study leave would be claimed.
On 02.07.2024, the competent authority rejected the request on the ground that the petitioner had not completed three years of regular service. The rejection was based on clarificatory instructions dated 28.08.2023. The petitioner challenged the said order and the instructions, contending that under Government instructions dated 09.11.2022, the requirement of three years’ service applied only where study leave or regular mode of education was involved.
The respondents contended that the petitioner had joined recently and was still under probation, and therefore the application was rightly rejected.
The Court examined the Government instructions dated 09.11.2022 and recorded that Clause 2(i)(a) applied to cases where study leave is not required. The instructions provided: “For cases for pursuing higher studies/course/training including technical or scientific studies in public interest through online/private/correspondence/distance mode/evening classes, where there is no need to attend class physically during office hours, he/she may be granted permission to pursue higher studies… subject to the condition that official work does not suffer under any circumstances.”
With respect to regular mode, the instructions stipulated: “For cases for pursuing higher studies/course/training including technical or scientific studies in public interest through regular mode… subject to fulfilment of condition of three years’ service as prescribed under Rule 41(iii) of HCS (Leave) Rules, 2016.”
Upon perusal, the Court observed that “the ground of having three years’ regular service on which the application of the petitioner was rejected is not applicable to the petitioner as the petitioner is not seeking permission to acquire higher qualifications through regular mode, whereas, petitioner intends to pursue higher education only through Distance Education Mode.”
On the issue of the right to education, the Court quoted from Supreme Court’s decision in Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka: “The right to education flows directly from right to life.” It further recorded: “The ‘right to education’, therefore, is concomitant to the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution.”
Reference was also made to Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court observed “right to education attaches to the individual as an inalienable human right.”
It recorded: "The right to education has been vested with the gravity of being an inalienable human right. Denying the right to pursue any educational qualification to any individual who is willing to pursue it, at any stage of life would be violative of the Fundamental Right to Education and thus could not be justly taken away or forfeited, as these rights are inherent, permanent, and essential to human dignity from birth throughout one's entire existence."
Regarding administrative instructions, the Court observed that the impugned clarificatory instructions were contrary to earlier executive instructions and that “rejection of the application of the petitioner on the basis of such clarification holds no value in the eyes of law.”
The Court recorded: “In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.07.2024 (Annexure P-5) is hereby set aside.” The respondents were directed “to grant permission to the petitioner to enroll in Bachelor of Arts by Distance Education Mode. The petitioner shall not avail any study leave and shall maintain the requisite standard of work. He shall be permitted to avail leave only during the examination period.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Additional A.G., Haryana
Case Title: Naveen Kumar v. State of Haryana and others
Neutral Citation: 2026 PHHC 019018
Case Number: CWP-21396-2024
Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
