VYAS, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :      " It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may please be directed to regularise the period of study leave and complete the service book. It is further prayed that the payment of study leave and the period as teacher grade-III for 11 days may kindly be directed to be made to the petitioner. It is further prayed that the service book may kindly be directed to be sent to the school where the petitioner is serving after making all the relevant entries. "
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that she was initially appointed as Laboratory Assistant in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (hereinafter as "the Rules of 1971") and in pursuance of the order dated 27. 12. 1991, she joined her duties at Govt. Girls Secondary School, Jaliya-II in February, 1992. As per the petitioner her probation period was completed in the month of February, 1994 and after completion of probation period, the petitioner applied for doing B. Ed. course and she was granted permission to acquire the said course on her own expenses vide letter dated 16. 9. 1994. THE case of the petitioner is that after reliving from the School, the petitioner acquired the course of B. Ed. for the period commencing from 22. 9. 1994 to 4. 5. 1995 from Haribhau Upadhyay Women Education College, Hatundi, Ajmer. THE petitioner has placed on record the reliving order after completing the B. Ed. course from the institute. As per petitioner, a request was made to the school authorities to take up the matter for early settlement of her study leave so that her regular increments of pay can be settled. THErefore, the Principal of School sent a communication to the District Education Officer (Girls) Ajmer. But her matter was not finalized and at last upon repeated requests made by the petitioner, the matter was sent to the Office of Director, Primary & Secondary Education, Bikaner. From where, a communication was sent on 11. 1. 1998 to the District Education Officer (Girls), Ajmer in which certain informations were sought for regularizing and grant of study leave. THEreafter, the claim of the petitioner for grant of study leave was rejected and the said order of rejection was communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure-12 dated 16. 9. 2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the communication dated 16. 9. 2004 is illegal and she is entitled for study leave as per rules because the petitioner was initially appointed on probation and after completion of probation period she made a request for reliving her and to grant study leave and in pursuance of her own request, she was ordered to be relieved vide order dated 16. 9. 1994 whereby it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner may be relieved for acquiring qualification of B. Ed. upon furnishing the admission letter. Further, it is observed in the order that this order has been passed at the request of the petitioner that she will acquire such qualification on her own cost. Meaning thereby, a request was made by the petitioner and she was relieved and thereafter she acquired the said qualification. Therefore, she is entitled for grant of study leave, so also for grant of payment of period of study leave because after acquiring B. Ed. qualification while working on the post of Laboratory Assistant, she was declared surplus due to abolition of the post of Laboratory Assistant and she was absorbed on the post of Teacher Grade-III. Later on she applied for the post of Senior Teacher and after due selection as per rules she was provided appointment as Senior Teacher in the year 1997. In this case, the prayer of the petitioner is that the order Annexure-12 is illegal and the petitioner is entitled for grant of study leave and that period is required to be regularized for the purpose of regularization of her service. Learned Govt. Counsel vehemently opposed the said prayer on the ground that as per Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 no study leave can be granted to an employee unless he had completed three years of service and in this case, the petitioner was relieved to acquire such qualification at her own request that she will acquire the said qualification on her own cost and no application for study leave was filed by the petitioner prior to relieving, so also no study leave or permission was granted to the petitioner for acquiring B. E. D. qualification, therefore, there is no illegality in the order dated 16. 9. 2004 Annexure-12) passed by District Education Officer. The petitioner is claiming relief which is totally contrary to the provisions of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed with cost because without any permission from the department and without any sanction of leave, the petitioner acquired the said qualification, which is not permissible under the law. I have perused the entire pleadings of the case so also the relevant provisions of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Admittedly, as per Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, study leave is admissible under Rule 110, which reads as under :      " 110. Admissibility of study Leave.- (1) Study leave will be admissible to a permanent Government servant to pursue course of study or investigation of a scientific or technical nature which in the opinion of the sanctioning authority is considered necessary in the public interest for the working of the department in which he is employed. It will ordinarily be not granted to a Government servant who has completed 20 years of service or more. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-rule (1) study leave will also be admissible to a temporary Government servant who has completed three years continuous service provided that the initial appointment has been made on the advice of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in case the post falls within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission or the appointment has been made by the competent authority in accordance with the rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or where such rules have not been framed the appointment has been made by the competent authority in accordance with the orders issued by the Government prescribing academic qualification, experience etc. (3) In case of a temporary Government servant who has completed three years continuous service and is not covered by provisions of sub-rule (2) above extra ordinary leave may be granted for a period of two years for purpose of prosecuting higher studies certified to be in the public interest in relaxation of provision contained in Rule 96 (b) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. "
(3.) UPON perusal of the aforesaid rule, it is clear that for grant of study leave, there is a mandatory requirement that the employee has to complete three years of continuous service. Although it is provided that this benefit of grant of study leave is available to the temporary government servant also but there are certain other conditions namely completion of three years of continuous service and higher study is certified to be in public interest. Both these necessary ingredients for grant of study leave are absent in this case. Admittedly without any sanction or permission of study leave, the petitioner left the services and acquired the qualification although she was relieved but it was upon her request and she was knowing at the time of relieving and taking admission that there is no sanctioned leave in her favour for grant of study leave, so also, there is no permission from the department for acquiring B. Ed. qualification in her favour granted by the respondents. Therefore, in my opinion, the order Annexure-12 is perfectly in consonance with the provisions of Rajasthan Service Rules, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards the judgment reported in (1989) 1 SCC 399 (Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs. University of Jodhpur & Ors.) in which it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that a candidate concealed nothing from the university and authorities granted admission to him after considering all the relevant facts. He cannot be made to suffer by putting in abeyance or cancelling his admission after his joining the classes for the mistake committed by the authorities themselves in granting the admission on the basis of a resolution which was contrary to university statutes. In my opinion, how above judgment is relevant in this case because that case was for grant of admission. Here, in this case the petitioner is claiming study leave. Moreover, she has not completed three years of service and admittedly she completed two years of service, so also obtained admission in the B. Ed. Course and made application to the District Education Officer that she want to acquire the qualification at her own expenses. Therefore, the District Education Officer has passed an order for relieve but it does not mean that District Education Officer has granted study leave and granted permission for acquiring such qualification in the public interest. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived and contrary to law and the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not even applicable in the facts of the present case. ;