Upon timely submission, the competent authority must decide the suspension representation on merits within 30 days.

The petitioner, a Teacher (L.B. Grade), was posted at Government Upper Primary School, Kochwahi, District Uttar Bastar Kanker.

He was placed under suspension by the Joint Director, Education Division Bastar, through order dated 21 February 2026.

He challenged the suspension and sought quashing of the order, reinstatement with consequential benefits, and, alternatively, a declaration that continuation of suspension beyond ninety days without a reasoned extension order and service of charges was unlawful, relying upon Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India and Manisha Pathak v. State of Chhattisgarh.

During hearing, however, the petitioner confined his request to permission to submit a fresh representation for revocation of suspension and a direction to the competent authority to decide it within a stipulated period.

The State stated that such representation would be considered in accordance with law, applicable State circulars and instructions, and Supreme Court precedent.

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 adjudicate the legality of the suspension order and the petitioner’s claims concerning continuation of suspension beyond ninety days, service of charges, and reinstatement, when the petitioner sought disposal of the petition on the limited basis of consideration of a fresh representation.

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

The petitioner had relied upon Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, concerning prolonged suspension and the need for timely review, and Manisha Pathak v. State of Chhattisgarh, W.A. No. 456 of 2022, decided on 09 September 2022.

However, the Court did not determine the applicability or merits of those principles to the petitioner’s suspension.

Since the petitioner limited his prayer to permission to file a fresh representation, and the State agreed to have it considered by the competent authority, the Court considered it unnecessary to examine the validity of the suspension order or the alleged non-service of charges.

The Court therefore adopted a non-merits approach and directed that the representation be considered independently, on its own merits, and in accordance with law, while taking into account the applicable governmental instructions and legal principles.

The Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the petitioner’s substantive claims.

The petitioner was granted liberty to submit a fresh representation to the competent authority within fifteen days from 09 September 2026.

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 thirty days from receipt of the representation.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the legality of the suspension, entitlement to reinstatement, or any other substantive claim.