Supreme Court To Hear Chhattisgarh Court Employee's Plea To Pursue LL.B As Regular Student
Gursimran Kaur Bakshi
22 March 2026 8:46 PM IST
The Supreme Court recently issued notice in a plea challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court's order, which held that 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 is not permissible under the Service Rules.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice in a special leave petition challenging the January 27 order, which stated that such permission has direct implications on administrative discipline, office functioning, and statutory compliance.
As per brief facts, in September 2022, an employee 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 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 set aside the order.
Case Details: AJIT CHOUBELAL GOHRA v. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.|Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9672/2026
Appearances: Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, AOR Mr. Aishwarya Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Moulishree Pathak, Adv.