Competent authority must decide a fresh representation against suspension on merits, preferably within 30 days.

The petitioner, a Teacher L.B. serving in Government Block Antagarh, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, was placed under suspension by order dated 18 February 2026 issued by the District Education Officer.

He challenged the suspension and sought quashing of the order, reinstatement with consequential benefits, and, alternatively, consideration of his challenge to the continued suspension and his reply to the charge-sheet dated 27 February 2026.

During the hearing, the petitioner limited his request to permission to submit a fresh representation before the competent authority seeking revocation of suspension.

The State submitted that any such representation would be considered and decided in accordance with law, applicable Government circulars and instructions, and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

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

Whether the High Court should itself adjudicate the validity of the suspension order and the petitioner’s entitlement to reinstatement at this stage?

The Court applied the principle that a representation concerning suspension must be considered by the competent authority on its own merits and in accordance with applicable service rules, Government circulars and instructions, and binding Supreme Court precedent.

The Court also followed the restraint that, where the matter can be addressed administratively by the competent authority, the Court may issue a limited direction for consideration of the representation without expressing an opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute.

No specific statutory provision or Supreme Court precedent was identified by name in the order.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s counsel had confined the relief sought during the hearing to permission to file a fresh representation against the suspension.

Since the State consented to consideration of such representation in accordance with law, the Court treated the matter as capable of being resolved through a time-bound administrative decision rather than undertaking a merits review of the suspension order.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the legality of the suspension, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to submit a fresh representation and required the competent authority to independently consider and decide it in accordance with law.

The petitioner was granted liberty to submit a fresh representation before the competent authority within 15 days from the date of the order.

If submitted within that period, the competent authority was directed to consider and decide it on its own merits and in accordance with law, preferably within 30 days of receiving it.

The authority was directed to take an independent decision, and the Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim.