Advocates:
['KAMLESHWAR PRASAD SAHU', '', 'C JAYANT K RAO', 'A G', '', 'PRAFULL N BHARAT', 'KESHAV DEWANGAN', 'HARSHAL CHOUHAN', 'AKASH PANDEY']

W.P.(S)No.1625/2015

Page 1 of 5

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Writ Petition (S) No.1625 of 2015

Smt. Chanda Patel, W/o Late Shri Dwarika Prasad Patel, aged

about 34 years, R/o Village Sirpur, Post Baloda, Tahsil

Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Panchayat & Social

Welfare Department, Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang,

Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Joint Director, Panchayat Directorate Chhattisgarh Raipur,

Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

4. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Mahasamund, District

Mahasamund (C.G.)

5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Saraipali, District

Mahasamund (C.G.)

---- Respondents

For Petitioner:

Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate.

For Respondents/State: Mr. Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

18/01/2016

1. Application for compassionate appointment filed by the

petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner

does not possess the requisite qualification for the post of

Teacher (Panchayat).

2. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit

that the question raised has been considered by this Court in

W.P.(S)No.1625/2015

Page 2 of 5

W.P.(S)No.3257/2015 (Smt. Jaya Bai Verma v. State of

Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 26-10-2015 and in

which this Court while dismissing the writ petition has

observed in paragraphs 14 and 15 as under: -

“14. The law with regard to employment on

compassionate ground for dependent of a

deceased employee is well settled. The following

three decisions are pertinent and are being

noticed herein:

14.1 In the matter of I.G. (Karmik) and others v.

Prahalad Mani Tripathi¹, their Lordships of

the Supreme Court have held that

Compassionate appointment cannot be

granted to a post for which the candidate is

ineligible. Their Lordships observed in

paragraphs 11 and 12 as under:-

“11. The respondent, thus, could be offered

an appointment only to the post for which

he was suitable.

12. Furthermore, the respondent accepted

the said post without any demur

whatsoever. He, therefore, upon obtaining

appointment in a lower post could not have

been permitted to turn round and contend

that he was entitled for a higher post

although not eligible therefor. A person

cannot be appointed unless he fulfills the

eligibility criteria. Physical fitness being an

essential

eligibility

criteria,

the

Superintendent of Police could not have

made any recommendation in violation of

the rules. Nothing has been shown before

us that even the petitioner came within the

purview of any provisions containing grant

of relaxation of such qualification.

Whenever, a person invokes such a

provision, it would be for him to show that

the authority is vested with such a power.”

14.2 In the matter of State of Gujarat and

others v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari and

another² their Lordship of the Supreme

Court considered the issue with regard to

1

(2007) 6 SCC 162

2

(2012) 9 SCC 545

W.P.(S)No.1625/2015

Page 3 of 5

eligibility criteria of a candidate applying for

the post and held that a person does not

possess requisite qualifications neither can

apply for recruitment nor he can be

appointed on such a post by observing in

paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 as under:-

“12. Fixing eligibility for a particular post or

even for admission to a course falls within

the exclusive domain of the legislature/

executive and cannot be the subject matter

of judicial review, unless found to be

arbitrary, unreasonable or has been fixed

without keeping in mind the nature of

service, for which appointments are to be

made, or has no rational nexus with the

object(s) sought to be achieved by