Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 26125 (CHH)

ANIL KUMAR KANWAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/5229/2026 · 2026-07-09

Shri Bibhu Datta Guru

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010263192026 2026:CGHC:29051 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5229 of 2026 Anil Kumar Kanwar Son Of Late Shri Devalal Kanwar Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Vill. Mandlatola, Post Itar, Dist. Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Public Instructions, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Block Education Officer Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sahdev Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lav Sharma, PL RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.07.13 14:47:01 +0530 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 10/07/2026 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 23.03.2026 passed by the District Education Officer, Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai, whereby the compassionate appointment granted to the petitioner has been cancelled and his services have been terminated on the ground that while seeking compassionate appointment, the petitioner suppressed the material fact that his real brother was already serving in Government service as a Pharmacist in the Health Department, rendering the petitioner ineligible in terms of Clause 2.7 of the Government Circular dated 15.04.2024. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner's father, Late Shri Devalal Kanwar, who was serving as a Head Master under the School Education Department, died in harness on 29.11.2024. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on the post of Peon vide order dated 07.01.2025 and joined his duties on 09.01.2025. Subsequently, on receipt of an anonymous complaint alleging suppression of the fact that the petitioner's real brother was already in Government service, the matter was enquired into and, finding the allegation to be correct, the respondents passed the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's compassionate appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that although the petitioner's elder brother is employed as a Pharmacist in the Health Department, he has been residing separately from the family for more 3 than ten years and has no social, residential or financial relationship either with the petitioner or with their widowed mother. It is further submitted that the petitioner's brother is maintaining a separate establishment and has also sworn an affidavit affirming that he has no connection with the affairs of the petitioner's family. According to the petitioner, the widowed mother has always been residing with the petitioner and is wholly dependent upon him for her maintenance. Therefore, it is contended that merely because the petitioner's brother is in Government service, the petitioner could not have been held disentitled to compassionate appointment, particularly when the brother neither resides with nor supports the family of the deceased employee. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleading as well as the material available on record. 5. The compassionate appointment granted to the petitioner is governed by the Chhattisgarh Compassionate Appointment Policy, more particularly Clause 2.7 of the Government Circular dated 15.04.2024. The validity of the impugned order has, therefore, to be examined strictly in the light of the governing policy. 6. The precise issue as to whether the Court can direct an enquiry regarding dependency or financial support by a family member who is already in Government service while considering entitlement to compassionate appointment has already been authoritatively answered by the Full Bench of this Court. The said opinion has been applied by the Division Bench in State of Chhattisgarh & Others v. Umesh Thakur (WA 4 No.236 of 2022, decided on 07.07.2023). The Division Bench, relying upon the Full Bench decision, has categorically held that when one of the family members of the deceased Government servant is already in Government service and the applicable policy bars consideration of another dependent for compassionate appointment, this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct an enquiry regarding dependency or financial support rendered by such employed family member, as doing so would amount to rephrasing or rewriting the terms of the compassionate appointment policy. Consequently, the order of the learned Single Judge directing such an enquiry was set aside and the writ petition itself was dismissed. 7. In the present case, the entire edifice of the petitioner's challenge rests upon the plea that although his elder brother is in Government service, he has been residing separately for several years and is not extending any financial support either to the petitioner or to their widowed mother. Acceptance of such a contention would necessarily require this Court to undertake an enquiry regarding dependency and financial support, which, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench as applied by the Division Bench in Umesh Thakur (supra), is clearly impermissible. 8. Once the applicable policy itself creates a disqualification where a family member is already in Government service, the Court cannot dilute or modify the conditions contained therein by directing an enquiry into the actual financial relationship between the family members. Any such exercise would amount to rewriting the policy, which is beyond the 5 permissible limits of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view of the aforesaid binding precedent, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 23.03.2026 does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself, being devoid of merits. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul