Battu Devanand, J.

1. This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 22.12.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.19616 of 2021.

2. The parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition for the sake of convenience.

3. Heard Mr.R.Chandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Ms.Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and carefully perused the material available on record.

4. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

                  (i) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor on 02.12.2006 in the N.T.R College of Veterinary Sciences, one of the constituent colleges of the S.V. Veterinary University i.e., the respondent No.1 herein. After rendering eleven months of his service as Assistant Professor in the respondent-University, he availed Extraordinary Leave [hereinafter referred as ‘the E.O.L’] for a period of 14 months i.e., from 13.11.2007 to 09.02.2009 with permission from competent authority vide Memo No.6301/Ser.II/2007, dated 22.09.2007 to complete Ph.D studies at Indian Veterinary Research Institute [IVRI]. After completion of the E.O.L., he joined into duties and completed the remaining probation period and subsequently his probation got declared vide Memo.No.5523/Ser.I/2010, dated 29.12.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations to the University authorities to count or regularize the E.O.L. period availed for the purpose of prosecuting Ph.D course as qualifying service/regular service for promotion to the post of Associate Professor. But, the University authorities neither considered his request nor initiated any action on the representations submitted by him.

                  (ii) The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-University not considered the claim of the petitioner to consider the E.O.L. period of service for carrier advancement scheme [C.A.S] promotion, though the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Associate Professor with effect from 12.12.2016. Thereafter, by excluding the period of the E.O.L for Ph.D studies, the respondent-University gave promotion to the petitioner from 08.03.2018. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent in not considering regularization of the E.O.L. period availed for the purpose of Ph.D as qualifying service for promotion to the post of Associate Professor, he approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition.

5. Case of the respondents, in brief, is that:-

                  It is the case of the respondent-University that the petitioner joined duty on 02.12.2016 as an Assistant Professor and he kept under probation for a continuous period of two years with effect from the date of joining. After serving for a period of 11 months, he requested the University to permit him to prosecute his Ph.D course, which was unfinished. The petitioner was permitted to complete the unfinished Ph.D programme by granting the Extraordinary Leave for a period from 13.11.2007 to 09.02.2009 as a special case. The petitioner went on the E.O.L. before completion of the probation. He is not eligible for treating the period of the E.O.L. as per the SVVU improvement of teaching competent regulations. As per the clarification issued by the Government with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide letter No.13026/13/AH.II(3)/2018, dated 24.10.2018, the petitioner is not entitle to treat the E.O.L. period as study leave.

6. Considering the rival contentions made by respective counsel and having considered the material available on record, a learned Single Judge of this Court, by order, dated 22.12.2022, allowed the Writ Petition holding that the petitioner is entitled for consideration of the E.O.L. period availed by the petitioner from 13.11.2007 to 09.02.2009 as duty period for further promotion including all monitory benefits. Accordingly, learned Single Judge directed the respondent No.1-University to complete the entire exercise within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the respondent- University preferred this appeal.

8. Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants:

                  (a) Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that as per the U.G.C. regulations, 1998, study leave may be granted after a minimum of 03 years of continuous service to pursue a special line of study or research directly related to his/her work in the University or to make a special study of various aspects of the University and methods of education and the paid period of study leave should be for 03 years, but 02 years may be given in the first instance, extendable by one more years. He further submits that the Executive Council/Syndicate may in the special circumstances of a case, waives the condition of three years service being continuous. But, in the present case, the Writ Petitioner had rendered only 11 months of service before permitting him to compete his unfinished Ph.D programme.

                  (b) Learned Standing Counsel further contends that as per the SVVU (Improvement of Teaching Faculty Competency) Regulations, 2007, an in- service teacher shall be eligible for being granted deputation within SVVU/Outside SVVU-6(d) if the candidate has put-in a regular service of not less than 05 years in the University as per the Regulation - 6(d). Learned counsel further contends that as per FR 26 (bb), Note (3), the Extraordinary Leave by a Government Servant for the purpose of Higher Scientific and Technical Studies shall be allowed to count for increments in which, he was officiating at the time he possessed on such leave provided, the officer has put in at least 3 years of service under the Government. But in the present case, the petitioner only having less than 12 months of service, that too under probation and his services were not confirmed as on the date.

                  (c) Learned Standing Counsel further submits that considering the E.O.L. period of similarly situated persons for calculating service period for promotion vide proceedings, dated 29.08.2008, is totally vary to the case of the Writ Petitioner and those persons are fully under eligible criteria.

                  Accordingly, learned Standing Counsel would submit that the order of the learned Single Judge is unsustainable under law and requested to set aside the same by allowing the Writ Appeal.

9. Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1:

                  (a) On the other hand, Ms.Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 would submit that the E.O.L. availed for pursuing higher studies would entitled for pay and allowance and also regular increments. She further submits that in similarly situated cases, the University allowed their staff to pursue higher studies and research and after completion of higher studies, they were granted pay and allowance as well as regularization of the E.O.L. as duty period.

                  (b) Learned counsel contends that the writ petitioner was permitted by the competent authority for pursuing his higher studies (Ph.D) and to finish the same by granting the E.O.L. as special case. The petitioner completed his Ph.D after availing prior permission and with a condition to render 05 years of service after completion of Doctorate. The said condition was imposed pursuant to the sanction of E.O.L. as special case for pursuing higher education.

                  (c) Learned counsel further contends that the action of the respondent- University in not counting the E.O.L. period as a regular period for promotion is illegal and arbitrary and accordingly, she would submit that learned Single Judge of this Court has considered all aspects in proper perspective and passed very reasoned order allowing the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner against the action of the respondent-University. She would submit that there is no infirmity or illegality in the reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the respondent-University failed to raise any legal grounds to entertain this appeal and accordingly, requested to dismiss the Writ Appeal.

10. Having considered the submissions of the respective counsels and upon careful perusal of the material available on record, the issue to be considered by this Court in this Writ Appeal is as under:-

                  Whether the Writ Petitioner is entitled for consideration of the E.O.L. period from 13.11.2007 to 09.1.2009 as a duty period for further promotion along with monitory benefits or not?

11. Reasoning and Findings:

                  (i) The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in respondent-University on 02.12.2006 and thereafter, he availed the E.O.L. for a period of 14 months i.e., from 13.11.2007 to 09.02.2009. The respondent-University permitted the petitioner to complete his unfinished Ph.D course as a special case. After completion of the E.O.L., he joined into duties. It is an admitted fact that at the time of granting the E.O.L., he jointed into duties and completed the remaining probation period and subsequently, vide Memo, dated 29.12.2010, his probation was declared. The contention of the Writ Petitioner is that he is entitled for consideration of the E.O.L. period of 14 months as a duty period to consider for further promotions and for other benefits. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-University considered the E.O.L. period for promotion in respect of similarly situated persons vide proceedings, dated 29.08.2008. But, the University is denied to extend the same benefit to the petitioner. As such, it is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The other contention of the Writ Petitioner is that the respondent-University allowed the similarly situated persons for pursuing full Ph.D course for a period of three (03) years along with the pay and allowance.

                  (ii) On perusal of the Memo No.6301/Services.II/2007, dated 22.09.2007 issued by the respondent-University, it reveals that the respondent-University permitted the petitioner to complete his Ph.D studies by granting the E.O.L. as a special case on loss of pay to the petitioner. While granting such permission, a condition has been imposed against the petitioner to submit a bond in prescribed proforma annexed to that permission order to the effect that he shall serve the University for a period of five (05) years on return from the Ph.D studies and failing which, he has to fulfil the conditions of the bond by paying an amount equal to five years salary or the amount equal to the period he has still to serve the University as per the bond, whichever is less for permitting him to do Ph.D studies.

                  (iii) It is evident from the Memo No.6301/Services.II/2007, dated 22.09.2007 that the respondent-University is well aware of the U.G.C regulations, 1998 and SVVU (Improvement of Teaching Faculty Competency) regulations, 2007 and they are well aware that the petitioner is under probation at the time when he sought to avail the E.O.L. to complete his unfinished Ph.D programme. As such, the respondent-University is not supposed to contend, at present, that the petitioner availed the E.O.L. before declaration of the probation and without completing the required service of five (05) years.

                  (iv) Admittedly, after completing the Ph.D studies, the petitioner continued his service in the respondent/University and respondent-University had declared his probation also. If he failed to fulfil the conditions of the bond obtained by the respondent-University while granting the E.O.L. as a special case to him, the petitioner has to pay an amount equal to five (05) years salary to the respondent-University. It is also an admitted fact that the E.O.L was granted to the petitioner to complete his Ph.D studies on loss of pay. Whereas, the similarly situated persons were granted the E.O.L. along with pay and allowances.

                  (v) In view of the above, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, if the benefit extended to the similarly situated persons is not extended to the petitioner, it amounts to discrimination and against the right to equality envisaged in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Besides this, as admitted by the respondent-University in their counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition stating that the Fundamental Rule 22-bb provides that the Government servants, who availed the E.O.L. for the purpose of higher technical studies shall be allowed for increments. Thus, by virtue of the said Fundamental Rule, the petitioner is also entitled for his claim. As and when the respondent- University has considered the E.O.L. period for calculated service period for promotions in respect of similarly situated persons vide proceedings, dated 29.08.2008, the same benefit should be extended to the petitioner also. Non- extending the said benefit to the petitioner on par with the similarly situated persons is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Denying the same benefit to the petitioner, which was extended to similarly situated persons resulted in a [travesty of justice].

12. In view of the above, the appellants failed to make out any case warranting interference of this Court into the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge on facts or under law.

13. In the light of the above discussion, in our considered opinion, the petitioner is entitled for consideration of the E.O.L. period from 13.11.2007 to 09.02.2009 as duty period and as such, it has to be counted for further promotion including all monitory benefits.

14. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.

15. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.