1 2025:CGHC:43560 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4147 of 2021 1 - Foolkaina Chandrawanshi W/o Late Shri Motilal Chandrawanshi Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Aasra, Post And Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 4 - Zila Panchayat Rajnandgaon Through The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Khilendra Sahu, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L. For Respondent No.4 : Shri Manharan Lal Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.08.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- NIRMALA RAO 2 “1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 3/2/2021 (Annexure-P/1) bearing No.973/Z.P./ Shi.Kha./2021 issued by the respondent No.4. 11. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to take appropriate action to consider the case of the petitioner and grant her appointment on the post of Panchayat Secretary as per the circular dated 8/1/2016. 111. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the husband of the petitioner, namely Motilal Chandrawanshi, was posted as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I under respondent No. 4, who died in harness on 12.2.2011. She moved an application for the grant of compassionate appointment, but the same has been rejected by respondent No.4 vide order dated 3.2.2021 on the ground that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification according to the circular dated 8.1.2016 for appointment either to the post of Teacher or Panchayat Secretary. He would further submit that the husband of the petitioner died on 12.2.2011; at that time, the circular dated 8.1.2016 did not exist; therefore, the order passed by respondent No.4 is erroneous and bad in law. He would contend that earlier, WP(S) No. 1503 of 2019 was filed, whereby a direction was issued to respondent No.4/Zilla Panchayat to consider the claim of the petitioner, but the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. He would pray to quash the impugned order 3.2.2021 (Annexure-P/1). 3 3. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Teacher or Panchayat Secretary, and hence, her candidature was rightly rejected. They would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. It is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner died on 12.2.2011. The application for the grant of compassionate appointment was rejected by respondent No. 4 based on the circular dated 8.1.2016 on the ground that the petitioner did not meet the prescribed qualification criteria. However, the said circular came into effect much after the date of death of the husband of the petitioner, and on the date of death, the circular dated 8.1.2016 was not in existence; therefore, the observation made by respondent No. 4 is erroneous, and the decision has been taken by the said authority without the application of mind. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order Annexure-P/1 is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 4 is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment afresh in accordance with the rules prevalent at the relevant time, within a period of 30 days from today. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi