2025:CGHC:56527 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13117 of 2025

1 - Renu Malviya D/o Late Kalakant Malviya Aged About 49 Years Lecturer (L.B.) At Govt. Higher Secondary School, Gatapar Jungle, Block Khairagarh, District - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, District - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 4 - Block Education Officer Khairagarh, District - Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 5 - Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School, Gatapar Jungle, Block Khairagarh, District - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 6 - Pay Drawing Disburing Officer-Cum-Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School, Itar, Block Khairagarh, District - Khairagarh-

Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.)

---- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Rupdendra Dewangan, Advocate For State : Mr. Suyash Dhar, Dy. Govt. Adv.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

Order on Board

Digitally signed by ANGARE Date:

2025.11.22

17:01:14 +0530

20.11.2025

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the order dated 06.11.2025, whereby her application for grant of Child Care Leave has been rejected on the ground that she is imparting teaching to Classes 10th and 12th, whose courses are required to be completed, and that absence at this stage would be detrimental to the academic interest of the students.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the rejection of the applicant dehors the circular dated 04.10.2018 issued by the State Government governing Child Care Leave. It is further submitted that, subsequent to the rejection of the petitioner’s application, Child Care Leave has been granted to another teacher, which demonstrates discriminatory treatment. On these grounds, he prays for quashment of the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) as being arbitrary and discriminatory.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has already availed earned leave in the same academic year, and considering that she teaches Classes X and XII, both being Board classes whose examinations have been scheduled in the third week of February 2026, the rejection of her request for Child Care Leave is justified. It is contended that leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right, it is discretionary and must be balanced with institutional requirements. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a mother who must look after her child, however, this Court cannot overlook the fact that she is a teacher entrusted with the responsibility of preparing students appearing for the Class X and XII Board examinations, which are scheduled to commence shortly. The academic future of the students may be adversely affected if they are deprived of proper teaching support at this crucial stage. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Principal rejecting the petitioner’s application for Child Care Leave does not suffer from any perversity or irregularity warranting interference by this Court.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. 7. Before parting to this case, this Court deems it appropriate to observe that teachers must remain committed to their duties towards the betterment of their students and should strive to balance personal responsibilities with professional obligations. As schools are foundational institutions of society, teachers are expected to be infused with zeal, dedication and a sense of betterment