Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1 Heard Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.2.

3 The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.13729/2025 (Ajit Choubelal Gohar v. High Court of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has been allowed.

4 The brief facts projected before the learned Single Judge were that respondent No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Grade-III in the establishment of appellant No. 2, i.e., Principal District and Sessions Court, Raipur, vide appointment order dated 22.09.2022, and placed on probation for three years. Condition no. 7 of the appointment order prohibited pursuing higher studies in the first year without prior permission of the Head of the Office. During probation, respondent No. 1 obtained permission from appellant No. 2 to pursue LL.B 1st Year (Session 2023-24) vide order dated 17.07.2023, and LL.B 2nd Year vide order dated 27.08.2024. The Chhattisgarh District Judiciary Establishment (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Employees Rules, 2023 came into force on 06.10.2023. Rule 11 provides that an employee shall not appear as a regular candidate in academic examinations but may do so as a private/correspondence candidate with prior permission of the appointing authority. After completing two years, respondent No. 1 applied for permission to pursue LL.B 3rd Year (Final Year) as a regular student for Session 2025-26. Appellant No. 2 rejected the request vide order dated 04.09.2025, which was upheld by appellant No. 1 vide order dated06.10.2025.

5 Aggrieved, respondent No. 1 filed WPS No. 13729 of 2025, which was admitted and allowed by the learned Single Judge on 10.12.2025, directing appellant No. 1 to grant permission for LL.B 3rd Year, holding that Rules of 2023 were not applicable due to the saving provisions under Rule 47.

6 Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.12.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge, without giving the appellants a reasonable opportunity to place their stand on record, the present writ appeal has been preferred.

7 Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants submitts that the learned Single Judge erred in appreciating that the orders under challenge before the Single Bench, dated 04.09.2025 and 03.11.2025, were passed strictly in accordance with Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh District Judiciary Establishment (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Employees Rules, 2023, which governs the grant of permission for upgrading educational qualifications. Rule 11 clearly provides that an employee shall not be permitted to appear in any academic examination as a regular candidate; however, permission may be granted to appear as a private or correspondence candidate only with prior approval of the appointing authority.

8 It is submitted by Mr. Tiwari that appellant No. 2, being the appointing authority of respondent No. 1, had duly considered the request for pursuing LL.B Third Year as a regular student and rejected the same by placing reliance on the express provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules of 2023. Learned counsel further contended that the Single Judge erred in invoking the saving clause under Rule 47 of the Rules of 2023 to extend permission, whereas the said provision does