The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed the blanket ban imposed by Haryana government on foreign travel of its employees due to the fuel crisis caused by the West Asia conflict [Sheetal Rani v State of Haryana and Others]
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said the foreign travel ban was applied mechanically to all government employees without any scope of consideration for individual circumstances, including the purpose of travel.
“A blanket prohibition on an entire class of citizens merely because they are in government service is manifestly arbitrary. The State has failed to demonstrate any rational nexus between the objective sought to be achieved by the impugned Instructions (Annexure P-7) i.e., addressing the impact of the global crisis on fuel and resources, and the complete prohibition imposed on private foreign travel,” the Court said.
The Court was dealing with a petition moved by a nursing officer who wanted to travel to Australia for a professional examination. She challenged the guidelines issued by the government on June 10 insofar as they imposed a blanket restriction on foreign travel of employees.
The government in January had approved her foreign visit by permitting her to apply for a visa. This was to enable her to take the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) conducted by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and National Boards.
However, her application for earned leave was declined this month due to the government instructions that allowed foreign travel for State employees only for medical reasons.
In the judgment passed on August 27, the Court said that in today’s globalized world, the right to travel abroad cannot be restricted as a matter of mere administrative privilege.
It noted that the instructions issued by the State were purely executive in nature and not backed by any enactment.
Further, the Court observed that if the government has the power to regulate foreign travel of its employees, the restriction imposed must satisfy the rigorous standards of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
It opined that preventing a nursing officer from travelling to Australia for a professional examination does not only trample upon her right to travel abroad but is also thwarting her right to higher education.
“The right to education is a fundamental right traceable to Part III of the Constitution of India and as such, linked to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Court said.
It added that the blanket restriction on foreign travel of employees was grossly disproportionate to its alleged objective
Consequently, the Court set aside the government instructions to the extent they imposed a blanket ban on foreign travel of employees and directed the competent authority to grant leave to the petitioner to enable her foreign travel.
“The factual matrix of the present case is illustrative of a sledgehammer being used to crack a nut, which is impermissible in our constitutional jurisprudence,” the Court said.
Advocates Brijender Kaushik and Sandeep Kr Bhardwaj represented the State.
AAG Akshit Pathiana represented the State of Haryana.
Advocate Aditya Gautam represented other respondents.
[Read Judgment]