Can Court Employee Study LL.B As Regular Students? Supreme Court To Decide

In Ajit Choubelal Gohra v. High Court of Chhattisgarh & Ors., the Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether a court employee on probation can pursue an LL.B course as a regular student while in service.

The matter arises from a challenge to a Chhattisgarh High Court decision which disallowed such permission under applicable service rules. The Court has now issued notice and will hear the dispute in detail.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta took cognisance of the plea filed against the High Court’s ruling. The case involves questions about administrative discipline and the extent to which employees can engage in full-time education during service.

The dispute traces back to 2022, when the employee was appointed as an Assistant Grade-III in a district court on a three-year probation. At the time of appointment, service conditions restricted higher studies during the initial phase without prior approval.

The employee had obtained permission to complete the first and second years of the LL.B course. However, the situation changed after the introduction of the Chhattisgarh District Judiciary Establishment (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Employees Rules, 2023.

These Rules clearly restrict employees from appearing in examinations as regular students. They allow academic pursuits only through private or correspondence modes, subject to approval from the appointing authority.

When the employee sought permission to attend the third year of LL.B as a regular student, the request was denied by the appointing authority, citing the 2023 Rules. This rejection led to legal proceedings before the High Court.

A Single Judge of the High Court initially ruled in favour of the employee. The Court held that the 2023 Rules would not apply in this case due to the saving clause, and directed authorities to grant permission.

However, this relief was short-lived. A Division Bench later overturned the Single Judge’s decision, holding that the Rules were applicable and that allowing regular study could disrupt official duties and administrative functioning.

The appellants argued that permitting probationary employees to attend regular courses could undermine discipline and affect court operations. They stressed that service rules must be strictly followed to ensure institutional efficiency.

On the other hand, the employee’s case appears to centre on the continuity of permission already granted for earlier years and the interpretation of the saving clause under the new Rules.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the matter is significant, as it raises broader questions about balancing professional commitments with educational aspirations, especially within the judicial system.

The upcoming judgement is expected to clarify whether service rules can override previously granted permissions and to what extent employees on probation can pursue full-time legal education.