Court Employee Can't Pursue LLB As Regular Student In Violation Of Service Rules: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside a single judge order permitting a probationary employee (Respondent-1) of the Principal District and Session Court to attend his third-year of LLB course as a regular student, holding that such permission has direct implications on administrative discipline, office functioning, and statutory compliance.In September 2022, Respondent-1 was appointed as...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside a single judge order permitting a probationary employee (Respondent-1) of the Principal District and Session Court to attend his third-year of LLB course as a regular student, holding that such permission has direct implications on administrative discipline, office functioning, and statutory compliance.
In September 2022, Respondent-1 was appointed as an Assistant Grade-III in the Court of Principal District and Session Court (Appellant-2) for a probation period of three years. Under conditions of appointment, Condition 7 prohibited pursuing higher studies in the first year without prior permission of the Head of Office.
During probation, Respondent-1 obtained permission from Appellant-2 to pursue the first and second years of the LL.B course. Subsequently, the Chhattisgarh District Judiciary Establishment (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Employees Rules, 2023 (“2023 Rules”), came into force on 06.10.2023, Rule 11 of which explicitly prohibited an employee from appearing as a regular candidate in any academic examination and permitted such study only as a private or correspondence candidate, subject to permission of the appointing authority.
Accordingly, when Respondent-1 sought permission to appear as a regular third-Year student, Appellant 2— which was the appointing authority, rejected the request.
Aggrieved, Respondent-1 approached the High Court, where the Single Judge, vide the impugned order, allowed the petition and directed Appellant-1 to grant permission to the Respondent-1 to appear for his third year.
Referring to the repeal and saving clause under Rule 47 of the 2023 Rules— which repeals all orders, instructions and circulars corresponding to the 2023 Rules immediately before their commencement in respect to the matters covered by the Rules, the Single Judge held that the Rules of 2023 were not applicable due to the saving provisions under Rule 47.
When the aggrieved appellants approached the Division Bench challenging the Single Judge's order, Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed,
“… upon a close and careful reading of Rule 47, it is apparent that the saving clause does not confer any vested or continuing right to the respondent to pursue higher education as a regular student contrary to the express mandate of Rule 11. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that permission for pursuing higher education as a regular student is directly linked with administrative discipline, office functioning, and statutory compliance.”
The appellants had submitted that the Single Judge had failed to give a reasonable opportunity to them to place their stand. Further, they contended that the Single Judge erred in invoking the saving clause under Rule 47 to extend permission, whereas the said provision does not confer any vested or continuing right contrary to the express provisions of the Rules.
Lastly, they contended that the Single Judge overlooked that permission to pursue higher education as a regular student directly affects functioning and administrative discipline of the office, and granting such permission in the absence of statutory authority, or contrary to existing rules, would not create any equity in favour of the respondent.
In contrast, respondent 1 argued that by Rule 47, provisions of Rule 11 could not retrospectively affect the ongoing course of study.
Noting that the Single Judge committed a “serious error” in allowing the writ petition, without affording an opportunity to the appellant to place their stand on record, the Division Bench held,
“It is further observed that granting permission in contravention of the statutory Rules does not create any equitable right in favor of the respondent. The permission sought by the respondent to pursue LL.B Third Year as a regular student, in view of the provisions of Rule 11, is expressly prohibited without prior permission, and the orders passed by appellant No. 2 were fully justified and in accordance with law. The Single Judge's approach to allow the writ petition on the first date of hearing, without notice or opportunity to the appellants, is clearly contrary to settled principles of judicial discipline and fair hearing.”
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order.
Case Details:
Case Number: WA No. 62 of 2026
Case Title: High Court of Chhattisgarh and Anr v. Ajit Choubelal Gohar and Anr