Why Chhattisgarh High Court blocked court employee from pursuing final-year LLB as regular student

Rule 11 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.

“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 court held.

It further observed that the single judge’s approach to allow the employee’s plea on the first date of hearing, without notice or opportunity to the appellants, was contrary to settled principles of judicial discipline and fair hearing.

“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 were denied a reasonable opportunity to place these aspects on record, which constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice,” the order read.

Background

• The 38 year-old man was appointed as assistant grade-III in the establishment of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Raipur.
• During probation, he obtained permission to pursue LLB 1st year and 2nd year.
• The Chhattisgarh district judiciary establishment (recruitment and conditions of service) employees rules, 2023 came into force.
• After completing two years, he applied for permission to pursue LLB 3rd Year (Final Year) as a regular student but his request was rejected.
• He challenged the decision before the single judge who directed to grant permission for LLB 3rd year, holding that rules of 2023 were not applicable due to the saving provisions under Rule 47.

Findings

• 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 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 were denied a reasonable opportunity to place these aspects on record, which constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice.