No Prior Permission To Pursue Regular Course: Telangana High Court Refuses To Validate Employee's LLB Degree

The Telangana High Court has held that a court employee who pursued a regular three-year LL.B. course without prior permission cannot later seek ratification of that degree for entry in his service register, particularly after his earlier writ petition seeking the same relief had been withdrawn without liberty to re-agitate the issue. A Division Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao observed that the petitioner, having once withdrawn an earlier writ petition without seeking liberty, was “estopped” from approaching the authorities again for the same relief."In the above factual matrix of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner despite having ample opportunity to seek ratification immediately after obtaining the degree, failed to do so, and further the petitioner, by withdrawing the earlier writ petition without seeking liberty, has effectively waived his right to approach the respondents again for the same relief, more so, when his application to study law course was considered and rejected by the High Court on 24 17.07.2015, and as such, the claim of the petitioner for entering the LL.B., Degree in service register, is unjustified and invalid. In view of the above findings, the instant writ petition is misconceived, legally untenable, and devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed". The Court held that the petitioner's claim to have his LL.B. degree treated as valid for all purposes, including for appearing in the Junior Civil Judge examination, was “unjustified and invalid.” The petitioner, Jagannath, had joined judicial ministerial service as a Junior Assistant in 2005, and was later promoted as Senior Assistant, Superintendent, and Senior Superintendent. While working as Superintendent at Shadnagar, he appeared for LAWCET and joined the three-year LL.B. course at Mahatma Gandhi Law College for the academic years 2014–17. According to him, the class timings were suitable for employees, and he was initially unaware of the government memo requiring prior permission to prosecute higher studies.He applied on 04.06.2015 seeking permission to pursue the course. However, the High Court rejected that request on 17.07.2015. The rejection was based on a report of the Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar, who noted that the petitioner had already joined the course without prior permission, intended to pursue it on a regular basis by availing proportionate leave, and was posted about 50 kilometres away from the college, making it impracticable to attend classes without affecting court work.Despite the rejection, the petitioner continued and completed the LL.B. degree in 2017 from Osmania University. He later sought to rely on that degree for purposes including participation in recruitment to the post of Civil Judge. Over the years, he filed multiple writ petitions seeking substantially similar reliefs, including recognition or validation of the LL.B. degree and entry of the same in his service register. One such writ petition was withdrawn in 2019 with liberty to file afresh; another was dismissed as infructuous; and a later writ petition filed in 2021 seeking the same relief was withdrawn without liberty.In the present writ petition, the petitioner challenged proceedings dated 04.06.2024 rejecting his request to validate/ratify the three-year LL.B. degree and enter it in his service register. He argued that the government memo dated 06.04.1978 requiring prior permission had not been communicated to him at the relevant time, that his studies did not hamper official work, and that similarly situated employees had earlier been granted permission to pursue law courses.The High Court held that the petitioner's application for permission had in fact been considered and rejected by the High Court on 17.07.2015, and therefore his contention that the rule was communicated only later was untenable. The Court further held that the employees cited by him were not similarly situated, as they had pursued evening law courses, whereas the petitioner had undertaken the LL.B. in regular mode, which the authorities found would hamper judicial work.Most importantly, the Bench noted that the petitioner had already filed an earlier writ petition for the same relief and had withdrawn it without seeking liberty to make a fresh representation or refile. In those circumstances, it held that he had effectively waived his right to re-agitate the issue through another representation or writ petition.The Court also noted that even after obtaining the degree in 2017, the petitioner did not immediately seek ratification or entry of the same in his service register, and approached the authorities only later when recruitment to Civil Judge posts was notified. This further weakened his claim.The plea was dismissed.Case Title: Jagannath v. The Registrar (Administration), High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad & anotherCase No.: W.P. No.35145 of 2024Appearance: Sri G.U.R.C....

No Prior Permission To Pursue Regular Course: Telangana High Court Refuses To Validate Employee's LLB Degree

Ananya Tangri

Tags