Right to Education Cannot Be Curtailed by 3-Year Service Condition: P&H High Court Allows VLDA to Pursue B.A. Through Distance Mode
Case Name: Naveen Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 09 February 2026
Citation: CWP-21396-2024
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the condition of completion of three years’ regular service is not applicable where a government employee seeks permission to pursue higher education through distance mode without requiring study leave. Denial of such permission solely on the ground of insufficient length of service is contrary to applicable government instructions and violative of the fundamental right to education under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Summary: The petitioner, appointed as a Veterinary Livestock Development Assistant (VLDA) on 09.02.2024 and having joined on 15.02.2024, sought permission to enroll in a Bachelor of Arts course through Distance Education Mode without availing any study leave . His representation dated 29.05.2024 was rejected vide order dated 02.07.2024 on the ground that he had not completed three years of regular service and was still under probation .
The petitioner relied upon Government instructions dated 09.11.2022 governing permission for higher studies. As reproduced in the judgment, Clause 2(i)(a) provides that where study leave is not required and classes are pursued through online/private/correspondence/distance mode without physical attendance during office hours, permission may be granted subject to the condition that official work does not suffer. The requirement of three years’ service is stipulated only in cases of regular mode studies requiring physical attendance .
Upon perusal of the instructions, the Court held that the three-year service condition applies only to cases falling under Clause 2(i)(b), i.e., regular mode studies requiring physical attendance. Since the petitioner intended to pursue education through distance mode without availing study leave, Clause 2(i)(a) was applicable and no such service-length restriction operated .
The Court further observed that the right to education is traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution and forms an integral part of the right to life and dignity. Relying upon Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka and Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that the right to education is an inalienable human right and cannot be unjustly curtailed .
It was emphasized that encouraging employees to enhance their educational qualifications serves public interest by improving administrative competence and efficiency. The State, as a model employer, bears a constitutional responsibility to promote professional growth rather than impede it. The impugned clarificatory instructions dated 28.08.2023, issued at a lower administrative level and inconsistent with prior executive instructions, were held to have no legal sanctity .
The Court concluded that denial of permission on the ground of non-completion of three years’ service was unsustainable in law.
Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 02.07.2024 was set aside. The respondents were directed to grant permission to the petitioner to enroll in B.A. through Distance Education Mode. The petitioner shall not avail study leave and may take leave only during the examination period while maintaining requisite work standards .