1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4988 of 2023 1 - Lalit Kumar Son Of Namdev, Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Village And Post Chhuria Post Bholapur, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Controller Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. V. Jayant Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate For State :- Mr. D.R. Minj, Dy. A.G. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 09.02.2026 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1. By virtue of the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality, validity, and propriety of the order dated 06.07.2023 issued by the office of respondent No.2, whereby the respondent authorities have denied the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment solely on the ground that the death of her father occurred prior to the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh into the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. It is submitted that the said rejection is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the notification dated 02.02.2006 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, wherein it has been specifically provided that cases of compassionate appointment pertaining to deaths occurring even prior to the formation of the State of Chhattisgarh are liable to be considered. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities particularly the respondent no. 3 to consider her compassionate appointment. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/ order/ directions towards the respondents to pay other payable benefits and allowances to the petitioner with retrospective 3 effect. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community (Gond) and is the daughter of Late Shri Shyam Lal Sidar, who was working as Head Master of Primary School, Kerakhol, Development Block Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.), and who expired on 31.05.1995. After attaining the requisite qualification, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.10.2016 before the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Raigarh, seeking compassionate appointment on account of the death of her father, along with all requisite documents. In the said representation, the petitioner specifically brought on record the surrounding circumstances and grievances, including the fact that her widowed mother was earlier denied compassionate appointment on the ground of illiteracy and minority of legal heirs, and that her elder sister, upon attaining majority in the year 2011, had also made several representations which were rejected through a non-speaking order without assigning any valid reasons. The petitioner further submitted affidavits along with her representation, including no-objection affidavits from her mother and elder sister, clearly stating that none of the dependent family members are employed under the State Government. After repeated refusals of the rightful claim of her elder sister, the petitioner, despite extreme 4 financial hardship, managed to complete her studies and, upon attaining majority, approached respondent No.4 seeking compassionate appointment; however, her claim was also denied arbitrarily. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to an inadvertent mistake while filling the online application form, the petitioner was shown as a physically handicapped (PWD) candidate. It is submitted that although the system permitted correction of the online form up to the last date of submission and even granted an additional period of three days for rectification, the petitioner could not rectify the said error within the stipulated time. The petitioner came to know about the mistake only after publication of the result, and therefore seeks rectification of the application form. 5. Learned counsel for the State as well as for Vyapam submits that once the application form was submitted and the petitioner failed to rectify the error within the prescribed correction period, he has no enforceable right to seek rectification of his category thereafter. It is contended that the application instructions themselves clearly provided a specific window for correction, including an extended period of three days, but the petitioner did not avail of the same. It is further submitted that the entire selection process has already been completed and the requisite number of teachers have been appointed and are presently working, thereby creating accrued rights in their favour. In such circumstances, the claim of the petitioner at this belated stage cannot 5 be entertained. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Upon perusal of the record as well as the application form submitted by the petitioner, it is apparent that the petitioner not only selected the category of PWD but also specifically described himself as a hearing impaired person. The entry is not a mere technical or clerical tick-mark error; rather, it is a conscious declaration made in more than one column of the form. In such circumstances, the plea of the petitioner that the mistake was bona fide and inadvertent does not inspire confidence. The application form clearly provided an opportunity for correction within the prescribed time, followed by an additional correction window of three days. The petitioner admittedly failed to avail himself of the said opportunity. Once the correction period expired, the data submitted by the candidate attained finality. Permitting rectification at a highly belated stage, after completion of the entire selection process, would amount to unsettling a concluded process and would prejudice the rights that have already accrued in favour of the selected candidates. 8. It is well settled that recruitment processes must adhere strictly to the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement and instructions to candidates. The Courts, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, ordinarily do not interfere in such matters where the candidate himself is at fault and seeks relaxation after the process has concluded. Sympathy 6 or equity cannot override explicit conditions of the selection procedure. 9. In the present case, the petitioner, having made a categorical declaration regarding his status as a PWD/hearing impaired candidate and having failed to correct the same within the permissible time, cannot now seek rectification after publication of the result. The claim raised in this petition is therefore devoid of merit. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha