1 2025:CGHC:30608 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5865 of 2018 1 - Kumari Ishani Chauhan D/o Late Harish Chand Chouhan Aged About 19 Years R/o Naya Munda Madan Mohan Malwiya Ward No. 44, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The District Education Officer, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Leekesh Kumar, Advocate holding the brief of Mrs. Renu Kochar, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly call for the entire record in relates to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be issued a writ or writs / order / or orders to quash the impugned order dated 20.08.2018 (Annexure P-1), issued by the District Education Officer, Bastar, Jagdalpur (CG), and further be pleased to grant the compassionate appointment to the petitioner being the nominee of deceased employee. 10.3 That, any other relief, this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.04 19:35:32 +0530 2 2. Mr. Leekesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that late Kamal Shah was working on the post of Head Master in Primary School, Kosa Center, Kumharpara, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, who died in harness on 24.01.2018. He would contend that the petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment on 05.06.2018. It is contended by Mr. Leekesh Kumar that the petitioner is niece (Bhanji) of the deceased. He would submit that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 20.08.2018 on the ground that being niece (Bhanji) of the deceased, the petitioner is not entitled for consideration. He would pray that according to policy, the petitioner is also entitled to claim compassionate appointment. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Pramod Ramteke, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents would submit that in the policy of 2013 amended on 30.08.2016, mother, father, widow, wife/widower husband, son and daughter (includes adopted son/daughter, widow/divorced daughter) and daughter-in-law are entitled to claim compassionate appointment. He would contend that niece (Bhanji) is not entitled to claim compassionate appointment, therefore, her application/ representation was rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that according to Circular of 2013 amended on 30.08.2016, niece (Bhanji) cannot claim compassionate appointment, therefore, the application/representation of the petitioner was rightly rejected by respondent No.2. The order passed by 3 respondent No. 2 is within the four corners of policy for compassionate appointment of the State, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere. 6. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti