1 / 6 2026:CGHC:15395 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1569 of 2025 Smt Nileshwari Dewangan W/o Late Shri Mukesh Kumar Dewangan Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Asoga Ranitarai Block Patna, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Department Of School Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Block- C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer, Durg District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat, Durg District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Patna District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Advocate For State : Mr. Sahil Singh, P.L. For Respondent No. 4 and 5 : Mr. Raman Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate S.B.: HON'BLE SHRI PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, JUDGE ORDER ON BOARD 02.04.2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for 2 / 6 the entire records concerning the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents, for its kind perusal. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and quash the impugned order 28.11.2024 passed by the respondent no. 4 (Annexure P/1): 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and direct the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner at the earliest within a specific time frame. 10.4 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) with respondent No. 5. While holding the post of Assistant Teacher, he died in harness on 06.11.2015. Petitioner thereafter submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment in the month of December 2015 with request to the respondent to grant compassionate appointment. Respondent No. 4 after receipt of the application along with all relevant documents informed the petitioner that he is not possessed with the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and was granted three years time to obtain the requisite qualification. Vide letter dated 22.02.2018 further three years time was granted to obtain the qualification of D.Ed and to pass Teacher Eligibility Test Examination. Petitioner appeared in the TET examination scheduled in the month of March 2020, however, due to outbreak of the COVID-19 Pandemic, the examinations were postponed and petitioner participated in the examination held by the CG Professional Examination Board, Raipur on 09.01.2022. The results of the exams of the 3 / 6 TET was declared on 07.04.2022. Delay in passing the TET examination cannot be attributed to the petitioner in the facts of the case, but it is due to unavoidable circumstances and unfortunate natural calamity. He contended that the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected vide letter impugned Annexure- P/1 dated 28.11.2024 only mentioning that the petitioner was granted three years time to obtain requisite qualification vide letter dated 22.02.2018, however, she failed to obtain the minimum requisite qualification within three years from the date of the letter, which is erroneous and arbitrary in the facts of the case and therefore, respondent No. 4 and 5 be directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner on merits and pass appropriate orders granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the respondent-State would submit that based on the observation made by this Court, he has sought instructions and according to his instructions, the examination which is scheduled in the month of March, 2020 due to outbreak of COVID-19 Pandemic was postponed and it was scheduled only in the month of January, 2022 and the results of which was declared on 07.04.2022. He also contended that C.G. Professional Examination Board, Raipur has issued press note on 13.03.2020 for postponing the examination scheduled in the month of March, 2020. 4. Counsel for the respondent No. 4 and 5 submits that they have acted in accordance with the guidelines. Petitioner could not obtain the requisite qualification for her appointment as Assistant Teacher on compassionate basis, within three years from 22.02.2018 which comes to an end on 4 / 6 21.02.2021, but the qualification which is obtained by the petitioner is in the month of April, 2022. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Very short question is involved in this writ petition for consideration of this Court, the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected vide Annexure-P/1. Petitioner could not be able to obtain requisite qualification within three years from 22.02.2018. It is not in dispute and known to all that from March, 2020 there was an outburst of the COVID-19 Pandemic in which the Lock-down was declared by the Government of India which was extended time to time. There was directives of the Central Government as also the State Government for avoiding gathering of the people at a particular place. The State Government has placed before this Court the press note issued by the C.G. Professional Examination Board, Raipur dated 13.03.2020 mentioning that the exams scheduled on 22.03.2020 of TET 20 is stayed and further date will be declared after analyzing the situation of COVID-19 Pandemic. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic have excluded the period during Covid-19 pandemic period with which the entire country was suffering i.e. from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. The relevant paragraph of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 10.01.2022 in Re:Cognizance for Extension of Limitation in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 in M.A. No. 665 of 2021 in SMW (C) No. 3/2020, which reads as under :- “I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 5 / 6 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 8. Counsel for the respective respondents have not disputed the submission of counsel for the petitioner that after outbreak of COVID-19 Pandemic, the first examination conducted by the CG Professional Examination Board, only in the month of January, 2022 and results of which was declared in the month of April, 2022. 9. In the aforementioned facts of the case where the petitioner could not obtain the requisite qualification with period of three years as granted to her by authorities for her consideration to give compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher is due to natural calamity of 6 / 6 outburst of COVID-19 Pandemic and for reasons as discussed above it cannot be attributed to the petitioner and therefore, in the facts of the case, the decision of the respondent No. 4 dismissing the application of the petitioner on the ground of delay in obtaining the qualification i.e. instead by 21.02.2021 obtained in April, 2022 , in the opinion of this Court is arbitrary and hence it is not sustainable and accordingly it is quashed. The respondent No. 4 and 5 are directed to reconsider the application for grant of compassionate appointment of the petitioner afresh and to pass appropriate orders considering all the qualifications procured by the petitioner within the period of three years as granted by the authorities if otherwise, she is entitled. 10. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE Saurabh