Safiya Malik

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal allowed an appeal and set aside a single judge’s order that had permitted a probationary employee of the Principal District and Sessions Court to attend the third year of his LL.B course as a regular student. The dispute arose after the employee sought approval to continue the final year in regular mode, which the court administration declined under the service framework governing academic participation during service. Restoring the refusal, the Bench noted that granting such permission in regular mode affects administrative discipline, office functioning and statutory compliance.

The writ respondent was appointed as Assistant Grade-III in the establishment of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Raipur, and was placed on probation for three years under an appointment order dated 22.09.2022. One of the conditions of appointment restricted the pursuit of higher studies during the first year of service without prior permission of the Head of Office.

Also Read: Release On Probation Does Not Erase Conviction Stigma In Departmental Proceedings: Supreme Court

During the probation period, the employee obtained permission from the appointing authority to pursue LL.B First Year for the academic session 2023–24 and LL.B Second Year thereafter. Subsequently, the Chhattisgarh District Judiciary Establishment (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Employees Rules, 2023 came into force on 06.10.2023. Rule 11 of the said Rules restricted employees from appearing as regular candidates in academic examinations, permitting only private or correspondence study with prior approval.

After completing two years of study, the employee sought permission to pursue LL.B Third Year as a regular student for the session 2025–26. The appointing authority rejected the request, which was affirmed by the Registrar General of the High Court. Aggrieved, the employee filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The present intra-court appeal was preferred challenging the said order.

The Court observed that the Chhattisgarh District Judiciary Establishment (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Employees Rules, 2023 came into force on 06.10.2023. The Bench stated that “Rule 11 of the Rules of 2023 explicitly prohibits an employee from appearing as a regular candidate in any academic examination and permits such study only as a private or correspondence candidate, subject to prior permission of the appointing authority.” It was recorded that the appointing authority had considered the request for pursuing LL.B Third Year as a regular student and rejected the same in accordance with the said Rule.

While dealing with the saving clause relied upon by the learned Single Judge, the Court observed that “… 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.”

Observing that the Single Judge erred in granting the writ petition without giving the appellant a chance to place its position on record, the Division Bench held that:  “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.”

Also Read: Father Staying With Second Wife Without Divorcing First Not Eligible For Custody; Child’s Welfare Overrides Father’s Financial Capacity: Chhattisgarh HC

The Court directed that “the present writ appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 10.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 13729 of 2025 (Ajit Choubelal Gohar v. High Court of Chhattisgarh and others) is hereby set aside. The orders passed by appellant No.2 on 04.09.2025 and appellant No.1 on 06.10.2025, refusing permission to the writ respondent No.1 to pursue LL.B Third Year as a regular student, are upheld.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate

For Respondents: Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate, Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate

Case Title: High Court of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General v. Ajit Choubelal Gohar
Neutral Citation: 2026: CGHC:4293-DB
Case Number: WA No. 62 of 2026
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal