permission to pursue a Master's Degree in Law from a foreign university was rejected due to insufficient justification and failure to meet specified requirements

The appellant's request for permission to pursue a Master's Degree in Law from a foreign university was rejected due to insufficient justification and failure to meet specified requirements.

UNJAB SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY 

SERVICE TRIBUNAL LAHORE

Service Appeal No. 15 of 2023

Syed Faizan e Rasool

Versus

The Lahore High Court, Lahore through its Registrar 

J U D G M E N T

Date of hearing: 25.04.2024.

Appellant by:

In person.

Respondent by:

Mr. Muhammad Nauman Sarwar, 

Advocate. 

MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J. / CHAIRMAN:-

Through instant appeal, appellant has challenged letter dated 

25.08.2023, issued by respondent, whereby his representation for 

permission to apply for a Master Degree in Law from a foreign 

university, was declined. 

2. The appellant, in person, submits that impugned direction to 

approach a local university for admission in LLM is not in 

consonance with declared policy of this Court. He further submits 

that appellant has been subjected to gross discrimination in the 

matter as his other colleagues have been granted such permissions. 

Adds that appellant’s submissions have not been dilated upon while 

deciding his representation. In support, he has placed reliance on 

Usman Ali Chhachhar v. Moula Bux Chachhar and others (2019 

SCMR 2043), Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Limited v. 

Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance, 

Central Secretariat, Islamabad and others (2015 SCMR 630), Abid 

Hassan and others v. P.I.A.C. and others (2005 SCMR 25), 

Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi v. Pakistan 

Mutual Insurance Company Limited, Rawalpindi (PLD 1991 

Supreme Court 14), Pakistan Medical and Dental Council through 

Authorized Representative v. Muhammad Junaid Alam and others

(PLD 2019 Lahore 234), Ameer Afzal etc. v. Govt. of Punjab (NLR

Service Appeal No. 15 of 2023

2016 Service 34) and Dr. Sikandar Ali v. Government College 

University, Lahore through Vice-Chancellor [2012 PLC (C.S.) 

1119]. 

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submits that 

appellant failed to provide reasons motivating him at this stage of 

service to get higher education from a foreign university and how 

the degree would play a pivotal role in his personal growth and add 

value to his job. He contends that the qualification / education i.e. 

Gender Sensitization, possessed by appellant and mentioned in the 

contents of his application / appeal, has no relevance with the duties 

and functions as a judicial officer. He argues that appellant’s 

representation was decided after providing reasonable opportunity of 

hearing and attending all the grounds raised by him. He contends 

that question of discrimination does not arise in view of peculiar 

facts and circumstances of this case. 

4. Heard. Available record perused.

5. Earlier, appellant’s request for permission to apply for Fulbright 

Scholarship and Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program 2024 was 

not acceded to vide letter dated 04.05.2024, however the same is not 

assailed through this appeal. Presently, the matter of declining 

permission to apply for a Master’s Degree in Law from a Foreign 

University is before this Tribunal. Record shows that in response to 

appellant’s request, the respondent-department, vide letter dated 

14.06.2023, required appellant to justify his stance in the following 

manner:-

a.

to place on record his achievements at 

College/University/Local/National Level, in field of Law, prior 

to and after joining his service as Civil Judge, with 

documentary proofs in form of Certificates, Research 

work/papers, land-mark judgments etc. including distinctions 

he made during his trainings/courses at Federal/Punjab 

Judicial Academy(s), to support his keen interest in specific 

subjects for LLM from a foreign university.

b.

to submit that how much time he took to join his service as 

Civil Judge after his graduation in Law and what academic 

achievements he gained during that period specifically.

c.

to give reason(s) (at least three in number) that 

instigate/motivate him at this stage of service to get higher 

education from foreign university and how that particular 

degree will play a pivotal role in his personal growth and how 

his personal growth can add value in his work and ultimately 

to this institute.

Service Appeal No. 15 of 2023

d.

to indicate the name(s) of the local university(s), he 

approached and how his desired foreign work/syllabus 

University(s)'s course superior to course work/syllabus of 

those local universities.

e.

to state the tentative amounts of direct and indirect expenses 

involved for his foreign studies i.e. Tuition Fees, 

Accommodation expenses, Travelling expenses, meal 

expenses etc. and to pinpoint the sources, by which he 

intends to meet them all.

6. The stance of respondent, inter-alia, is that appellant could not 

satisfy the competent authority in answering the questions put to him 

whereas appellant vehemently contends that he is equipped with 

plausible reasons and material to justify his request coupled with the 

argument of discriminatory treatment. We are not inclined to enter 

into factual aspects of the matter, rather intend to decide the matter 

on legal plane. 

7. As per law, grant of permission to apply for higher education

and that too from a foreign university is not a rule of thumb for 

every judicial officer, and the same is also not backed by any 

express provisions of law or rules or policy instructions or prevalent 

practice and this legal position is not disputed by appellant. This 

matter pertains to discretion of the authority to be exercised in the 

light of attending facts and circumstances of each case, saddled with 

certain requirements / qualifications. In this case, the authority is not 

persuaded to exercise discretion for a number of reasons. The 

appellant, despite arguing the case at some length, could not 

convince us that the authority can be compelled to exercise the same 

in each and every case, especially when there is scarcity of Judicial 

Officers as compared to bulk of pending cases and in view of the 

prevalent policy of the authority circulated vide letter dated 

25.03.2024.

8. In matters of grant of leave, it is well-settled that such 

discretion cannot be claimed as of right, but for seeking such relief 

the applicant must follow the proper procedure provided under the 

rules and he is not supposed to avail any kind of leave entirely in his 

discretion and choice in departure to the rules and service discipline. 

Reference can be made to Muhammad Ali Bukhari v Federation of 

Pakistan through Establishment Secretary, Islamabad and 2 others

(2008 SCMR 214) and Allah Ditta v. Director of Education, 

Service Appeal No. 15 of 2023

Colleges, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur and another [1992 

PLC (C.S.) 571]

In Indian context, the Delhi High Court in the case reported as 

Anita Malik v. A.I.I.M.S. & another [2006(129) DLT 136] observed 

that it is no doubt true that the rule talks of eligibility and enables the 

Government or the concerned employer to grant study leave if the 

employee desirous of such a facility, fulfills the conditions. However, 

the rule is not cast in imperative terms. It is only an enabling 

discretionary provision and necessarily has to be exercised having 

regard to the circumstances of the case.

Furthermore, the High Court of Kerala in P. Geetha v. Kerala 

Livestock Development Board Ltd. And another (2015(1) Ker L.J. 

494) while discussing the Kerala Livestock Development Board 

Limited Staff Rules & Regulations, 1993 opined that leave cannot be 

claimed as a matter of right, and that under exigent circumstances, the 

leave sanctioning authority has the discretion to refuse, postpone, 

curtail or revoke leave of any description and/or to recall to duty any 

employee on leave.

9. In view of the foregoing, we are not inclined to interfere in the 

impugned order. The case law, relied upon by appellant, is 

distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of this case. 

10. Resultantly, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

However, appellant may apply again for such permission at an 

appropriate stage. 

(Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi)

Chairman

(Abid Husain Chattha) 

(Rasaal Hasan Syed)

Member 

 

Member

APPROVED FOR REPORTING

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.