Right To Education | Govt Can't Deny Distance Education To Employees For Want Of Minimum 3 Years Service: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a government employee cannot be denied permission to pursue higher education through distance mode merely on the ground of not having completed three years of service, observing that the right to education is an inalienable human right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "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."

The Court further explained that enhancing the educational qualification of an employee must be encouraged, because a better-educated workforce directly serves the public interest by enhancing the competency of the employee. A more educated workforce is better equipped to engage with complex social issues, adapt to technological changes, and contribute to a more informed and better results. Therefore, encouraging lifelong learning and educational enhancement is not merely a private benefit, but a public good.

The State not only bears the responsibility of ensuring a better-qualified workforce on the public payroll but also of supporting the professional growth of its employees, it added.

Allowing a writ petition filed by a Veterinary Livestock Development Assistant (VLDA), the Court set aside the rejection order dated 02.07.2024 and directed Haryana to grant permission to the petitioner to enrol in a Bachelor of Arts course through distance education mode.

The petitioner, Naveen Kumar, was appointed as a VLDA on 09.02.2024 pursuant to a selection process conducted by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission and joined his post on 15.02.2024. At the time of appointment, he had completed his 10th and +2 qualifications.

On 29.05.2024, he applied for permission to pursue a B.A. through distance education, specifically undertaking that he would not seek study leave and that his official duties would not suffer. However, his request was rejected on 02.07.2024 on the ground that he had not completed three years of regular service.

He challenged the rejection as well as clarificatory instructions dated 28.08.2023, which imposed a pre-condition of three years' service for grant of permission to pursue higher education.

The Court examined the Government instructions dated 09.11.2022 issued by the Finance Department. As per Clause 2(i)(a), where study leave is not required and higher education is pursued through online, correspondence or distance mode without physical attendance during office hours, permission may be granted subject to the condition that official work does not suffer.

The three-year service requirement, the Court noted, applied only in cases where the employee seeks to pursue higher education through regular mode involving physical attendance and availing of study leave.

Since the petitioner intended to pursue the course purely through distance mode and had undertaken not to avail study leave, the Court held that the condition of completing three years' service was inapplicable to his case.

Right To Education Under Article 21

The Court further observed that the issue was no longer res integra, as the right to education is traceable to Part III of the Constitution and linked to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, the Court reiterated that the right to education flows directly from the right to life and is essential to the dignified enjoyment of life.

Reference was also made to Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court observed that the right to education attaches to the individual as an inalienable human right.

Justice Brar underscored that denying an individual the opportunity to pursue education at any stage of life would be violative of this fundamental right, as such rights are inherent, permanent and essential to human dignity.

Encouraging Educational Advancement Is A Public Good

The Court emphasised that enhancement of educational qualifications by government employees ought to be encouraged as it serves the public interest. A better-educated workforce, the Court noted, is better equipped to deal with complex social issues and adapt to technological advancements.

Referring to Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India, the Court observed that the term “socialist” in the Constitution signifies the State's commitment to function as a welfare State. As a model employer, the State bears a constitutional duty to support the professional growth of its employees.

The Court also held that the impugned clarificatory instructions dated 28.08.2023 were contrary to the executive instructions dated 09.12.2022 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, and thus could not form a valid basis to reject the petitioner's application.

Setting aside the rejection order dated 02.07.2024, the Court directed the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to enrol in the B.A. course through distance education mode.

However, it clarified that the petitioner shall not avail study leave, must maintain the requisite standard of work, and may seek leave only during the examination period.

Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Additional A.G., Haryana.

Title: Naveen Kumar v. State of Haryana and others

Click here to read order