Study-leave rejection quashed for failure to consider relevant service rules and afford the employee a hearing.

The petitioner, a Lecturer in the Civil Engineering Department of North Calcutta Polytechnic College, sought permission to pursue a Master’s degree in Engineering.

His application was rejected by the Polytechnic College through communications dated 19 August 2026 and 22 August 2026, on the ground that Government Order No. 1/673174/2025 dated 31 July 2025 permitted deputation for higher studies only up to the age of 55 years, with a maximum two-year relaxation, whereas the petitioner was aged approximately 58 years and six months.

The petitioner relied on a State Notification dated 25 February 2021, which enhanced the age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years, and on the West Bengal Service Rules concerning the grant of study leave to employees nearing retirement.

He challenged the rejection communications under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the principle that an administrative authority must consider all relevant materials, including applicable Government orders, notifications, service rules and policy decisions, before taking a decision affecting an employee’s service-related rights and consequential benefits.

The Court also relied on the requirements of procedural fairness and natural justice, directing that the petitioner be given three days’ prior notice and an opportunity of hearing before a fresh decision was taken.

The relevant materials included Government Order No. 1/673174/2025 dated 31 July 2025, prescribing the age limit for deputation for higher studies and permitting limited relaxation, the State Notification dated 25 February 2021 enhancing the age of superannuation to 65 years, and the West Bengal Service Rules governing the grant of study leave to employees approaching retirement.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon.

The Court found that the rejection was based substantially on the petitioner’s age and the 31 July 2025 Government Order, but that the authority had apparently not considered the petitioner’s reliance on the enhanced age of superannuation, the applicable provisions of the West Bengal Service Rules, or other relevant Government policies and materials.

Since the petitioner’s proposed higher studies could have consequential service implications, the Court held that the matter required reconsideration on the basis of the complete legal and factual record.

The Court therefore set aside the rejection decisions, but expressly refrained from deciding the petitioner’s substantive eligibility, the validity of the applicable SOP, or the State’s policy on higher studies.

The Principal of the concerned Polytechnic College was directed to issue the petitioner three days’ prior notice, provide him an opportunity of hearing, consider the documents in the writ petition and all other relevant records and policy decisions, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

The exercise was to be completed within one week from the first hearing, with the reasoned order communicated within the following two working days.

If the decision favoured the petitioner, the competent authorities were directed to take consequential steps within seven days of communication of the order.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the claim or the validity of the SOP, and that the order created no independent right or equity in the petitioner.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs.