1 CGHC010186002025 2026:CGHC:41548 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3763 of 2025 Smt. Tomin Sahu W/o Late Shri Dileep Kumar Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Post - Hasda No. 1, Tehsil - Magarlod, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary Panchayat Department Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 4 - Zila Panchayat Dhamtari Through The Chief Executive Officer District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 5 - Janpad Panchayat Kurud Through The Chief Executive Officer District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Resp/State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, PL Resp. No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Rahul Sahu, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.09.26 10:52:34 +0530 2 24/09/2026 1. The petitioner has called in question the rejection of her claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that she had failed to acquire the requisite TET qualification within a period of three years from the date of death of her husband. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's husband died in harness on 24.05.2018. Pursuant to her application for compassionate appointment, the petitioner was granted three years' time to acquire the requisite educational and professional qualifications. It is submitted that the petitioner acquired the qualification of D.Ed. in the year 2020 and thereafter applied for and appeared in the TET examination. However, on account of the COVID-19 pandemic, the TET examination could not be conducted during the relevant period in the years 2020-2021. The examination was subsequently conducted and the petitioner acquired the TET qualification on 20.10.2022. A copy of the certificate has been placed on record. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner's claim was rejected on the ground that the requisite qualification had not been acquired within three years. Learned counsel submits that the delay in obtaining the TET certificate was not attributable to the petitioner, as the examination itself was not conducted during the relevant period on account of circumstances prevailing due to the COVID- 19 pandemic. It is also submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court has granted relief to similarly situated dependents in WPS No.9213 of 2022, by taking into consideration the extraordinary circumstances prevailing during the pandemic. 3 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State and the respondent Panchayats submits that compassionate appointment is governed by the policy of the State Government, under which the petitioner was required to acquire the prescribed qualification within a period of three years. Since the petitioner admittedly did not acquire the requisite TET qualification within the stipulated period, it is submitted that the competent authority was justified in rejecting her claim. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the controversy is required to be examined in the peculiar facts of the present case. 6. There is no dispute that the petitioner's husband died in harness on 24.05.2018. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was required to acquire the requisite qualification within the period prescribed by the authority. The question, however, is whether the said requirement could be applied mechanically in the facts of the present case when the examination through which the petitioner was required to acquire the TET qualification itself was not conducted during the relevant period on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. 7. The record indicates that the petitioner did not simply allow the prescribed period to lapse without taking any steps towards acquiring the requisite qualification. She acquired the D.Ed. qualification in the year 2020 and thereafter pursued the TET qualification. The TET examination, however, could not be conducted during the relevant period owing to the extraordinary situation prevailing on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner 4 subsequently appeared in the examination and obtained the TET qualification on 20.10.2022. 8. Thus, the delay in acquisition of the TET certificate, to the extent relevant for consideration of the petitioner's claim, cannot be attributed to any inaction or deliberate omission on her part. The petitioner could not have appeared in an examination which was not conducted. The subsequent acquisition of the qualification, therefore, has to be viewed in the factual background in which the examination was postponed. 9. A rule prescribing a period within which the requisite qualification is to be acquired is undoubtedly required to be respected. However, its application cannot be wholly divorced from circumstances which rendered compliance impossible for reasons beyond the control of the candidate. The extraordinary disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic is a circumstance which cannot be ignored while examining the petitioner's claim. 10. This Court also finds substance in the submission that similarly situated dependents have been granted relief in comparable circumstances. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the order passed in WPS No.9213 of 2022, annexed with the petition. The respondents, while considering the petitioner's representation, were therefore required to examine her case in the light of the peculiar circumstances arising from non-conduct of the TET examination during the relevant period, instead of rejecting the claim merely by counting the period of three years in a mechanical manner. 11. The impugned order dated 19/20.04.2023 proceeds essentially on the premise that the petitioner had not acquired the requisite qualification within 5 three years. It does not satisfactorily deal with the petitioner's specific contention that the TET examination was not conducted during the relevant period owing to the COVID-19 pandemic and that she acquired the qualification at the earliest available opportunity thereafter. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. 12. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19/20.04.2023 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.4 and the consequential rejection of the petitioner's claim dated 28.06.2021 are hereby quashed. 13. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment by treating the application submitted by her and the requisite qualification acquired by her as being within the permissible period, in view of the circumstances prevailing during the COVID-19 pandemic, and pass an appropriate order for her appointment within a period of 50 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 14. The petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul