Syed FAIZAN E RASOOL vs The LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE R — 2024 SCMR 1871 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Syed FAIZAN E RASOOL VS The LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE R. 8.129 & appendix 20, Clause 7---Revised Leave Rules, 1981, Rr. 9 & 15---Civil Judge---Study leave for judicial officers---Policy---admission in LLM programme at a foreign university---Petitioner, who was a Civil Judge, secured admission to the LLM programme of studies offered by two foreign universities---However, vide Lahore High Court's letter it was conveyed to him that the administration Judge had declined to grant him requisite permission, and had instead advised that the petitioner may obtain the same degree from a local university---against the decision of the administration Judge the petitioner filed Service appeal before the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal ('the Tribunal'), which through the impugned judgment maintained the decision of the administration Judge---Validity---No reason for declining permission to the petitioner was given---If, though it was not stated, his services were required then this was not stated; in any case this could not be a reason because he was advised to obtain the same degree from a local university---Impugned judgment upheld the decision of the administration Judge, by stating that, "in this case the authority is not persuaded to exercise discretion for a number of reasons."---However, not a single reason was cited in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal nor in the decision of the administration Judge and none had been cited by the Registrar of the Lahore High Court---Therefore, the said decision and the impugned judgment were not sustainable---Petitioner had been rendering service as a judicial officer for over ten years; he wanted to improve his legal qualification in his field of work by wanting to do an LLM, and had obtained admission and scholarship---Lahore High Court, therefore, would not have incurred any expenditure on his travel, lodging and payment of fees---Petitioner was also not close to retirement and was prepared to sign the requisite undertaking/bond---Undoubtedly, better qualified judicial officers would be an asset to the judiciary, and by utilizing their additional training and the knowledge they acquired, they would be better placed to dispense justice---Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, and impugned judgment as well as the decision of the administration Judge were set-aside with the direction that if the petitioner could no longer avail the admission and scholarship in the coming academic year he would be entitled to do so in the next, or any future year---Supreme Court observed that a clear, equitable and transparent policy with regard to study leave of judicial officers may be formulated by the High Court, which should then be applied uniformly, and if a judicial officer secured admission in a reputable foreign university on scholarship basis in the field of law or related discipline and fulfilled the stipulated criteria, including having served for the prescribed minimum number of years, was not close to retirement, there was no financial outlay by the High Court and was not facing disciplinary proceedings then permission should not be withheld, unless there was some good reason which was communicated to him/her.

Syed FAIZAN E RASOOL vs The LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE R — 2024 SCMR 1871 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR