Competent authority must decide a fresh representation against suspension within 30 days of receipt.

The petitioner, a Teacher (L.B. Grade—Mathematics), was placed under suspension by Suspension Order No. 198/2026 dated 9 January 2026, issued by the Joint Director, Education Division, Bastar.

He filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the suspension order, reinstatement with consequential monetary and service benefits, and interim relief, relying, inter alia, on Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, and Manisha Pathak v. State of Chhattisgarh, WA No. 456 of 2022.

During the hearing, the petitioner limited his prayer and sought permission to submit a fresh representation for revocation of suspension.

The State agreed that such representation would be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, applicable governmental instructions, and Supreme Court precedent.

Whether the writ petition could be disposed of by granting the petitioner liberty to submit a fresh representation against his suspension and directing the competent authority to decide it within a stipulated period.

Whether the legality or validity of the suspension order dated 9 January 2026 was required to be adjudicated in the present proceedings.

The Court proceeded on the principle that, where the petitioner seeks consideration of a representation and the State undertakes to decide it, the Court may dispose of the writ petition with a time-bound direction, without examining the merits of the underlying claim.

The representation was directed to be considered in accordance with law, applicable State Government circulars and instructions, and the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

The petitioner had relied on the principles concerning prolonged suspension and timely review recognized in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, and Manisha Pathak v. State of Chhattisgarh, WA No. 456 of 2022; however, the Court did not adjudicate or independently apply those precedents on the merits.

Since the petitioner confined his immediate request to permission to submit a fresh representation, and the State accepted that the competent authority would consider it in accordance with law, the Court found it appropriate to adopt a limited, time-bound procedural remedy rather than decide the validity of the suspension order.

The Court expressly preserved the petitioner’s substantive claims by directing the competent authority to decide the representation on its own merits and independently, while clarifying that no opinion had been expressed regarding the legality of the suspension.

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 from its receipt.

The Court did not quash the suspension order, direct reinstatement, or grant salary or consequential benefits, and expressly left all merits open.