Introduction:

In Naveen Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others, the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a significant ruling reinforcing that the right to pursue education is an inalienable human right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment was rendered by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar in a writ petition filed by Naveen Kumar, a Veterinary Livestock Development Assistant appointed on 09.02.2024 pursuant to a selection process conducted by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. The petitioner, who had completed his 10th and 12th qualifications at the time of appointment, sought permission to pursue a Bachelor of Arts degree through distance education mode. His request dated 29.05.2024 was rejected by the State on 02.07.2024 on the ground that he had not completed three years of regular service. He challenged the rejection order along with clarificatory instructions dated 28.08.2023 imposing a three year service requirement. The Court was thus called upon to determine whether a government employee could be denied permission to pursue higher education through distance mode solely for not completing three years of service, and whether such denial infringed the fundamental right to education embedded within Article 21 of the Constitution.

Arguments:

On behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel contended that the impugned rejection order was arbitrary and contrary to the Government instructions dated 09.11.2022 issued by the Finance Department. It was argued that Clause 2(i)(a) of the said instructions clearly distinguished between cases where study leave was sought for pursuing regular courses involving physical attendance and cases where higher education was undertaken through online, correspondence or distance mode without affecting official duties. The petitioner had specifically undertaken that he would not avail study leave and that his official work would not suffer. Therefore, the three year service requirement applicable to regular mode education could not be mechanically extended to distance education. Counsel further submitted that the right to education is a fundamental right traceable to Article 21 and any restriction preventing an individual from enhancing his educational qualifications without valid justification would amount to a violation of constitutional guarantees. It was emphasized that educational advancement not only benefits the individual but also enhances administrative efficiency and public service delivery. The petitioner argued that the clarificatory instructions dated 28.08.2023 were inconsistent with earlier executive instructions and could not override constitutional protections. On the other hand, the State represented by the learned Additional Advocate General defended the rejection by asserting that service discipline and administrative efficiency required reasonable conditions. It was submitted that the three year service condition ensured stability in service and prevented newly appointed employees from diverting attention from official duties. The State contended that such policy decisions fall within executive domain and courts should not lightly interfere. However, the Court questioned whether such a blanket condition could be applied in cases where no study leave was sought and no interference with official functions was demonstrated. The Bench also examined whether denying permission in such circumstances amounted to an unreasonable restriction on a fundamental right.

Judgment:

Allowing the writ petition, the Court set aside the rejection order dated 02.07.2024 and directed the State of Haryana to grant permission to the petitioner to enrol in the B.A. course through distance education mode. The Court held that the three year service requirement was applicable only where the employee sought to pursue higher education through regular mode involving physical attendance and availing study leave. Since the petitioner intended to pursue the course purely through distance mode without seeking study leave, the condition was inapplicable. The Court further observed that the issue was no longer res integra in light of constitutional jurisprudence recognizing education as an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21. Reliance was placed on Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka wherein the Supreme Court held that the right to education flows directly from the right to life, and on Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India which recognized education as an inalienable human right essential for dignified existence. The Court underscored that denying an individual the opportunity to pursue education at any stage of life would violate the fundamental right to education, as such rights are inherent, permanent and essential to human dignity. Justice Brar emphasized that enhancing educational qualifications of government employees must be encouraged because a better educated workforce directly serves public interest by increasing competence and adaptability. Referring to Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that the Constitution’s socialist character obligates the State to function as a welfare employer supporting professional growth. The impugned clarificatory instructions dated 28.08.2023 were found contrary to executive instructions dated 09.12.2022 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary Finance Department and thus unsustainable. While granting relief, the Court clarified that the petitioner shall not avail study leave, must maintain requisite standards of work and may seek leave only during examination periods. The judgment thus affirms that service conditions cannot be applied mechanically to curtail constitutional rights and that the State as a model employer must facilitate rather than hinder lifelong learning.