1 2026:CGHC:9147 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7172 of 2025 1 - Kumudni Sahu W/o Late Shri Bhupendra Sahu Aged About 37 Years (Assistant Teacher E Cadre), R/o Village - Suturkuli, Block - Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) -- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate with Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 20/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash order dated 09-06-2025 issued by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure P-1). 10.(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authority to immediately restore the appointment order dated 07-03-2024 of the petitioner given to her on a compassionate basis due to sudden BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 demise of bread earner of the family i.e. her husband and further direct to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits to her original post with continuity of service and other service benefits for which she is legally entitled. 10.(iii) That, in alternate this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to further direct the respondent authority to immediate provide the appointment on compassionate basis to the other equivalent post according to the qualification of the petitioner w.e.f. 07-03-2024 i.e initial date of appointment of the petitioner with continuity of service and seniority and other consequential benefits. 10.(iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to impose the heavy cost to the responsible officer of the State Government who issued the impugned order in a very casual manner ignoring the policy of the State Government.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that husband of petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher under the respondents department. He died in harness on 03.07.2023. Petitioner thereafter, submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment. As petitioner was possessing requisite qualification to be appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher prevailing at that time, she was given compassionate appointment vide order dated 07.03.2024. Since the date of appointment, petitioner was discharging her duties with honesty and dedication, however, petitioner was surprisingly served with an order dated 09.06.2025 of cancelling her order of appointment. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner’s appointment was cancelled only on the ground that petitioner was not possessing requisite qualification of D.Ed but B.Ed and according to the order of Division Bench of this Court, candidates to be appointed 3 on the post of Assistant teacher must possess degree of D.Ed along with other requisite qualification. He submits that there are other teachers appointed by the respondents/department who are possessing B.Ed. and not D.Ed., about 2621 in numbers and those teachers were accommodated in same department on the post of Assistant Teacher Science (Laboratory), therefore, instead of cancelling the appointment of petitioner, petitioner ought to have been accommodated on the post of Assistant Teacher Science (Laboratory). The act of cancelling appointment of petitioner and accommodating the other similarly situated teachers is discriminatory and is violative to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that order impugned (Annexure P-1) be quashed and respondents be directed to appoint petitioner as Assistant Teacher Science (Laboratory). 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that order Annexure P-1 is passed based on the dictum of Division Bench of this Court, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any error on the part of the respondents. He however, do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was given compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and further that on the date of her appointment, petitioner was possessing requisite qualification. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Undisputed facts of the case are that husband of petitioner was employee of respondents/department and he died in harness on 4 03.07.2023 while working on the post of Assistant Teacher. Petitioner submitted application pursuant to the policy formulated by the State Government for grant of compassionate appointment, which was accepted considering that petitioner is possessing all requisite qualification on the said date and she was given appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher on 07.03.2024. Decision which is relied upon by learned counsel for respondents for cancelling the order of appointment of petitioner is of subsequent date 02.04.2024. Decision of High Court is based on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Devesh Sharma in SLP No.17948 of 2024. 6. There cannot be any argument on the qualification for appointment of Asst. Teacher as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court, for appointment of Assistant Teacher, to be D.Ed. and not B.Ed but fact remains that respondent State has accommodated similarly situated teachers, who were possessing qualification of B.Ed and not D.Ed and appointed them as Assistant Teacher Science (Laboratory) by policy decision taken, vide order dated 30.04.2025. Accommodating other teachers, who are having B.Ed qualification on the post of Assistant Teacher Science (Laboratory) is not disputed by learned State Counsel based on the documents filed by petitioner along with rejoinder. 7. In the aforementioned facts of the case and considering that cancellation of appointment of petitioner singly and accommodating similarly situated other Assistant Teachers is discriminatory action on the part of the respondents/State. For the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that order of cancellation of appointment of petitioner vide 5 Annexure P-1 dated 09.06.2025 is not sustainable and accordingly it is set-aside. 8. Respondents/State is directed to reconsider the candidature of petitioner for her accommodating and appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher Science (Laboratory) as given appointment to other Asst. teachers possessing B.Ed. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in part. Respondents are directed to complete the said exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of order. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram