A timely representation seeking suspension revocation must be decided on merits by the competent authority within 30 days.

The petitioner, a Teacher (L.B.) posted at Government Middle School, Gotiya, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, was placed under suspension by order dated 9 January 2026 issued by the Joint Director, Education Division, Bastar

She challenged the suspension order and sought quashing of the order, reinstatement with consequential benefits, and, alternatively, a declaration that continuation of suspension beyond 90 days without service of charges or a reasoned extension order was illegal

During hearing, the petitioner confined her prayer to seeking liberty to submit a fresh representation before the competent authority for revocation of suspension.

The State agreed that such representation would be considered in accordance with law, applicable government instructions, and binding judicial precedents

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to submit a fresh representation seeking revocation of her suspension and whether the competent authority should be directed to decide it within a stipulated period

Whether the Court should adjudicate the legality of the suspension or its continuation beyond 90 days in the present proceedings

The Court referred to the legal principles governing suspension and its continuation, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, concerning the need for timely service of charges and review of prolonged suspension, and the application of those principles by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Manisha Pathak v. State of Chhattisgarh, W.A. No. 456 of 2022, decided on 9 September 2022

It further directed that the representation be considered in accordance with applicable State Government circulars and instructions and the governing law

Since the petitioner limited her request to submission and consideration of a fresh representation, the Court declined to examine the validity of the suspension order or the allegation of impermissible continuation beyond 90 days

Accepting the State’s assurance that the representation would be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law and applicable instructions, the Court granted the petitioner 15 days to submit it.

The competent authority was required to consider and decide the representation independently, on its merits and in accordance with law, preferably within 30 days of receipt

The Court expressly preserved the parties’ substantive positions by recording that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits.

The petitioner was granted liberty to submit a fresh representation to the competent authority within 15 days from 9 September 2026.

If submitted within that period, the authority was directed to decide it independently, on its merits and in accordance with law, preferably within 30 days from receipt

The Court clarified that no opinion had been expressed regarding the legality of the suspension or the petitioner’s entitlement to reinstatement or back wages.