1 2026:CGHC:946 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1085 of 2019 Chhatrapati Jhanp S/o Late Chakradhar Jhanp Aged About 22 Years R/o Village And Post- Kokiyakhar, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The District Education Officer Jashpur, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.01.08 10:58:25 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. K.P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Sharad Mishra, P.L. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 07.01.2026 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 21/01/2019 (Annexure P/1) by which petitioner’s application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by respondent No. 4 finding no merit. 2. Petitioner’s father namely Chakradhar Sai Jhanp died in harness on 05/07/2003 and thereafter, his daughter and petitioner’s sister namely Shilpa Jhanp filed an application for compassionate appointment on 14/07/2010 which was rejected on 29/07/2010 (Annexure R/1) and the same was neither challenged by the petitioner or his sister. Thereafter, petitioner herein filed application for compassionate appointment on 07/12/2018 which has been rejected by respondent No. 4 by the impugned order holding that it is barred by limitation which is sought to be challenged by way of this writ petition. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 4 is absolutely unjustified in rejecting petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment on the ground of limitation, which is opposed by learned counsel for the respondents/state by submitting that since order dated 29/07/2010 (Annexure R/1) rejecting the claim of petitioner’s sister for compassionate appointment has never been challenged, therefore, it has become final and as such, respondent No. 4 has rightly rejected petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment on the ground of limitation. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Since petitioner’s sister namely Shilpa Jhanp had already filed application for compassionate appointment on 14/07/2010 and it had been rejected by the respondent authorities on 29/07/2010 (Annexure R/1), the petitioner or his sister ought to have challenged that order and since it was never challenged by petitioner’s sister or the petitioner, it has attained finality and then after 15 years of his father’s death, petitioner has filed application for grant of compassionate appointment which has rightly been rejected by respondent No. 4 on the ground of 4 limitation. Once petitioner’s sister’s application for compassionate appointment has been rejected and it has never been challenged, petitioner cannot straightway be allowed to file second application for grant of compassionate appointment after attaining the age of majority. As such, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed in limine. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet