Study leave for higher education is a discretionary benefit, not a vested right of the employee.

The appellant, a Lecturer (Mathematics) at Government Polytechnic, Bijapur, sought permission for higher studies (Ph.D.), which was initially granted by the Department of Skill Development on 26.09.2024.

Following admission to Government Nagarjun Post Graduate Science College, Raipur, the appellant applied for study leave.

When the application remained pending, he filed a writ petition (WPS No. 9969/2025).

The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 13.11.2025, holding that the petitioner failed to show admission into an "institute of national importance" and that leave is not a matter of right.

The appellant challenged this dismissal via the present writ appeal.

1. Whether the appellant was entitled to the grant of study leave as a matter of right under the prevailing departmental policy.

2. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition on the grounds of failing to meet eligibility criteria for higher education institutions.

The Court applied the principle that leave is not a matter of right but is subject to the discretion and approval of the employer.

It emphasized that pursuing a course via public funds must serve the interest and advancement of the institution and the public at large.

Furthermore, the court referred to the eligibility criteria set out in the relevant departmental policy (dated 14.10.2022), which prioritizes or requires admission into "institutes of national importance" for the grant of study leaves.

The Court reasoned that since the appellant’s higher education is funded by public money through salary and benefits during the leave period, such an investment must benefit the state institution.

Upon reviewing the facts, the Court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that his chosen institution (Government Nagarjun Post Graduate Science College) met the requisite criteria of being an "institute of national importance" as envisioned in the parameters for higher education.

The Division Bench concurred with the Single Judge's finding that study leave is discretionary, not an absolute right.

The appellant could not show any perversity or legal error in the Single Judge's refusal to interfere with the employer's decision-making process.

The Division Bench found no illegality in the previous order and dismissed the writ appeal at the motion stage, confirming that the appellant was not entitled to a direction for the grant of study leave.