The High Court of Chhattisgarh has clarified that statutory rules governing public employees' pursuit of higher education cannot be circumvented by invoking saving clauses to protect ongoing academic pursuits. This judgment reinforces the primacy of express statutory provisions over subjective expectations, setting a critical precedent for administrative discipline in government service.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose when Ajit Choubelal Gohar, an Assistant Grade-III employee in the District and Sessions Court, Raipur, sought permission to pursue the third and final year of his LL.B as a regular student during his probationary period. His request was denied by his appointing authority, citing Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh District Judiciary Establishment (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Employees Rules, 2023, which explicitly prohibits employees from appearing as regular candidates in academic examinations.
Procedural History
- 22.09.2022: Respondent appointed as Assistant Grade-III, placed on three-year probation.
- 17.07.2023: Granted permission to pursue LL.B 1st Year (pre-Rules 2023).
- 27.08.2024: Granted permission for LL.B 2nd Year.
- 06.10.2023: Chhattisgarh District Judiciary Rules, 2023, came into force, introducing Rule 11.
- 04.09.2025: Appointing authority denied permission for LL.B 3rd Year as a regular student.
- 06.10.2025: High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld the denial.
- 10.12.2025: Single Judge allowed writ petition, directing permission be granted, relying on Rule 47.
- 27.01.2026: Writ appeal heard and allowed by Division Bench.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to grant permission to pursue LL.B 3rd Year as a regular student. The appellants sought setting aside of the Single Judge’s order, arguing violation of statutory rules and principles of natural justice.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the saving clause under Rule 47 of the Chhattisgarh District Judiciary Establishment Rules, 2023 permits an employee to continue pursuing higher education as a regular student, despite the express prohibition under Rule 11, where the course commenced before the Rules came into force.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Mr. Ashish Tiwari argued that Rule 11 is unambiguous: employees may appear in examinations only as private or correspondence candidates with prior permission. The saving clause in Rule 47 merely preserves past actions taken under repealed rules; it does not create a continuing right to violate new prohibitions. The Single Judge erred by ignoring administrative discipline and denying the appellants a fair opportunity to file a reply, violating principles of natural justice.
For the Respondent
Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha contended that since the LL.B course began before the 2023 Rules, Rule 47’s saving provision protects the respondent’s legitimate expectation to complete the program uninterrupted. He argued that denying completion would unfairly disrupt the respondent’s career and that no administrative harm would result from allowing continuation.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench conducted a rigorous textual analysis of Rule 11 and Rule 47. It emphasized that Rule 11’s prohibition on regular candidature is categorical and rooted in administrative discipline, ensuring employees do not compromise office functioning through full-time academic commitments. The Court held that Rule 47 does not confer a vested right to bypass statutory prohibitions; it only validates actions taken under prior rules that are consistent with the new regime.
"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 Court further noted that the Single Judge’s decision to dispose of the writ petition on the first hearing date, without affording the appellants an opportunity to file a reply or submit administrative records, was a grave violation of natural justice. The absence of a reply did not imply acquiescence; it deprived the Court of critical context regarding office workload, staffing constraints, and precedent-based administrative policy.
The Court rejected the notion that equity or career prospects could override statutory compliance. It held that no equitable right arises from a course of conduct that contravenes explicit rules, even if initiated before their enactment. The permission granted for the first two years was valid under pre-2023 norms, but the third year fell squarely under the new regime, which must be applied prospectively.
The Verdict
The appellants won. The Court held that Rule 11 of the 2023 Rules prohibits regular candidature for academic examinations, and Rule 47’s saving clause does not override this prohibition. The Single Judge’s order was set aside, and the denial of permission to pursue LL.B 3rd Year as a regular student was upheld.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Prohibitions Cannot Be Circumvented by Saving Clauses
- Practitioners must distinguish between preservation of past actions and creation of new rights under saving clauses.
- Employees cannot claim entitlement to continue activities prohibited under new rules merely because they began before enactment.
- Administrative authorities must enforce statutory prohibitions even if prior permissions were granted under older norms.
Natural Justice Requires Opportunity to Respond
- Courts cannot dispose of writ petitions on first hearing if the respondent has not filed a reply.
- Failure to afford a hearing to the administrative authority violates principles of natural justice, regardless of the petitioner’s perceived hardship.
- Practitioners should routinely raise procedural irregularities as grounds for setting aside orders.
Legitimate Expectation Has Limits in Public Employment
- While legitimate expectation is recognized in service law, it cannot override express statutory prohibitions.
- Career advancement or educational investment does not create enforceable rights against clear rules.
- Public employers may enforce uniform standards without exception, even for long-serving employees.
