Supreme Court Allows Chhattisgarh Court Employee To Appear In LL.B. 3rd Year Exams As Interim Measure

As an interim measure, the Supreme Court today allowed a Chhattisgarh Court employee, seeking to pursue LL.B. course as a regular student, to appear in the exams for 3rd year of the course.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order in the petitioner-employee's challenge to the Chhattisgarh High Court order, which held that permitting a probationary employee 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.

As the exam for one subject was held yesterday and the petitioner missed it due to lack of permission, the top Court said that he be allowed to appear in the remaining papers and orders in relation to yesterday's exam will be passed subsequently.

Briefly put, in September 2022, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Grade-III in the Court of Principal District and Session Court for a probation period of three years. Under conditions of appointment, he was prohibited from pursuing higher studies in the first year without prior permission of the Head of Office.

During probation, the petitioner obtained permission from the appointing authority 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 came into force on 06.10.2023. Rule 11 thereof 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.

As such, when the petitioner sought permission to appear as a regular third-year student, the appointing authority rejected the request. Aggrieved, he approached the High Court. Vide the impugned order, a Single Bench allowed the petition and directed grant of permission to the petitioner 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.

Aggrieved, the respondents approached the Division Bench, which was set aside the Single Bench order.

Appearances: Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, AOR Mr. Aishwarya Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Moulishree Pathak, Adv.

Case Details: AJIT CHOUBELAL GOHRA v. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9672/2026