Chhattisgarh High Court Blocks Court Employee from Pursuing Final-Year LLB as Regular Student
The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside an order that permitted an employee of the Principal District and Sessions Court in Raipur to attend his third year of LLB as a regular student. The court emphasized that such permission is expressly prohibited under statutory rules without prior approval from the appointing authority.
Court's Rationale: Rule 11 and Administrative Discipline
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed that the permission for pursuing higher education as a regular student is directly linked with administrative discipline, office functioning, and statutory compliance. The bench noted that the Principal Judge, as the appointing authority, had rightly rejected the employee's request based on Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh District Judiciary Establishment (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Employees Rules, 2023.
Rule 11 explicitly prohibits employees from appearing as regular candidates in academic examinations, allowing such studies only as private or correspondence candidates, subject to prior permission. The court stated, "Granting permission in contravention of the statutory rules does not create any equitable right in favor of the respondent."
Procedural Lapses and Natural Justice Violation
The High Court criticized the single judge's approach for allowing the employee's plea on the first date of hearing without providing notice or an opportunity to the appellants. This was deemed contrary to settled principles of judicial discipline and fair hearing.
The order read, "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."
Background of the Case
The 38-year-old employee was appointed as Assistant Grade-III in the establishment of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Raipur. During his probation, he obtained permission to pursue LLB first and second years. However, after the 2023 rules came into force, his request for permission to attend the final year as a regular student was rejected.
He challenged this decision before a single judge, who directed the grant of permission, arguing that the 2023 rules were not applicable due to saving provisions under Rule 47. The division bench, however, found that Rule 47 does not confer any vested right to pursue higher education as a regular student contrary to Rule 11.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- The court underscored the importance of adhering to statutory rules governing employee conduct and academic pursuits.
- It highlighted that administrative discipline and office functioning must take precedence over individual requests for regular academic enrollment.
- The judgment reinforced the necessity of following due process and ensuring natural justice in judicial proceedings.
This ruling serves as a significant precedent for similar cases involving government employees seeking to balance work commitments with academic aspirations, emphasizing compliance with established regulations and procedural fairness.
