Supreme Court Allows Chhattisgarh Court Employee To Appear In LLB Exams Amid Service Rule Dispute

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order while hearing a petition challenging a decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court. The High Court had held that a probationary employee of the district judiciary could not pursue a law degree as a regular student in view of the governing service rules.

Taking note of the urgency of the situation, the apex court allowed the petitioner to appear in the remaining examination papers. It also clarified that appropriate orders regarding one paper; already conducted a day prior, which the petitioner could not attend due to lack of permission, would be passed at a later stage.

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Grade-III in September 2022 in the office of the Principal District and Sessions Court and was placed under a three-year probation. As per the terms of his appointment, he was barred from pursuing higher studies during the first year of service without prior approval from the competent authority.

During the course of his probation, the petitioner had secured permission to pursue the first and second years of the LL.B. programme. However, the legal position changed with the introduction of the Chhattisgarh District Judiciary Establishment (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Employees Rules, 2023, which came into force on October 6, 2023.

Rule 11 of the 2023 Rules explicitly prohibits employees from appearing as regular candidates in academic examinations. It permits such studies only through private or correspondence modes, subject to prior approval. Relying on this provision, the appointing authority rejected the petitioner’s request to appear as a regular candidate for his third-year LL.B. examinations.

Aggrieved by the denial, the petitioner approached the High Court. A Single Judge Bench initially granted relief, directing the authorities to permit him to appear for the third-year examinations. The Single Judge relied on the repeal and saving clause under Rule 47 of the 2023 Rules, holding that the new rules would not apply retrospectively in light of the protection afforded to ongoing arrangements.

However, this order was subsequently set aside by a Division Bench of the High Court, which ruled that the 2023 Rules would govern the petitioner’s case and upheld the denial of permission.

Challenging the Division Bench decision, the petitioner moved the Supreme Court, seeking urgent relief in view of the ongoing examinations.

Considering the immediate academic consequences and without entering into the merits of the dispute at this stage, the Supreme Court passed an interim order allowing the petitioner to appear in the remaining papers.

Case Title: Ajit Choubelal Gohra v. High Court of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Hearing Date: April 21, 2026