'^•^^.s--fe^E*i»iE»sg%^'s'3-::'-3is's?gs; y HIGHCOURT QP CHHAmsOARH, BILASPUR W.P. (St No.7255 of 2007 PETITIONER RBSPONDBNTS Maniram s/o Puxutram Patel, ^ed about 40 years, R/o vfflage & Post Kamaraud Tahsil & District- Mahasaniuiid(CG) Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2 District Education Officer, Mahasamund District Mahasamund(CG) 3 Block Education Officer, Bagbahara, Mahasamuad(CG) WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF TODIA Appearaace: Shri Anup Majiundar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shri Satish Gupta, Dy. Goveminent Advocate aad Shri Sumit Venna, Paael Lawyer for the State/ respondentson advance copy. O^ALORDBR (10.12.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard on adinission. The petitioner, who is workiag on fhe post of SMksha Karmi Grade-III, has prayed for a direction to the respondents to give regular/permaaent appointjment to Wm on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III or Lower Division Teacher, considermg his qualification. The brief facts are fttat the petitioner was given compassionate appointment on 16.3.2006 on accouat ofdeafh of his iather namety-Puaitrain Patel, who died ia haraess. The petitioner was given appoiatnient on the post of Shiksha Karmi Orade-III in Goveirunent Priinary School, Duinarpali, Block Bagbahara, District Mahasamund. The copy of appoiutment order dated 16.3.2006 has been produced before this Court. Ee - T-- W.P.(S)No. 7255 of2007 Learaed counsel for the petitioner argues that ia fact, it was a teraporary appouitment given to the petitioner and fhe saoie was not a regular/pennaaent appoiatment, therefore, the services ofthe petition.er are notsecured. He apprehends that the petitioner inay be fhrown out at aay tiiue. He also argues that fhe petitioner was a better qualified person aad he should have given soiae better post than fhe post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. I have heard leamed counsel for the petitioner at leugfh aad have also perused the records of the writ petition. So far as the principles behind coinpassionate appointinent are conceraed, it should be kept confiaed only to fhe purpose it seeks to achieve aad the idea is not to provide endless compassion. In the matter of I.G.l K<amdk) Ss ors. v/s Prahlad. Shud Trlpathi. 2007 ASt SCW 3305, the Apex Court held that when the respondent was considered for appoiutment on compassionate ground ia place of his deceased father, who was Constable, he was not found eligible for the post of Constable and he accepted fhe lower post of peon without aay deiaur. Haviag doae so, he caniiot tum roiuid and contend that he was entifled for higher post. Moreso, when no relaxation of qua]i5cati.on was possible. In fhe present case, fafher of the petitioner was working as Lower Division Teacher and after his death; the petitioner was given coinpassionate appoiatment on fhe post of Sbiksha Karmi Grade III, which is almost equivalent to fhe post ofLower Division Teacher. Leamed counsel for fhe State submits fhat ia fact, fhe cadre of LDT has been declared to be a dying cadre and iiow only the appoiutments are xaade for Shiksha Kanni Grade III, Grade II aad Grade I iu place ofLDT'and UDT. Firstly, it cannot be said fhat fhe petitioner was given appoiataient on lower post fhaa the post which his fafher was holdiag at fhe tinie of his death. RrincipaUy, the petitioner has been given appointment in smular cadre and almost equivalent post on which, his father was workiag. More over, when the W.P.(s)No. 7255/2007 appoiatment letter was issued on 16.3.2006, it was accepted by the petitioner without aay deinur and the petitioner is worldng on fhe post ofShiksha Kanni Grade III fi~om the said date ofhis appoititment. Therefore, haviug done so, now the petitioner caruiot tum round and contend fhat he was entitted for higher post. The argument advanced by leamed couasel for the petitioner catuiot be accepted and fhe sauie is turued down. Tbe second point raised by learaed coiinsel for the petitLoner is about fhe nature of appoiatnient, which has been given to titie petitLoner. His contention is fhat fhe nature of appoiatment of the petitioner is a temporary appoiatment aad he should have been given regular appoiatment. After goiag fhrough fhe contents of appointment letter dated 16.3.2006 (which has been produced before this Court today aad it is beiug taken on record), it would appear that fhe appoiatmeM of fhe petitioner was inade under fhe provisious of C.G. Panchayat SIuksha Kannis (Recruitnient aad Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. Needless to say tbat wlien a particular appointment has been made on the basis of any particular statute, which has been. referred ia the appoiataient letter itself, the conditions of service are to be goveraed by the provisions of flie statute itself. It is brought to my notice by the Goveminent Advocate that there is a provision fhat if a person workiug as a probationer on the post of Shiksha Kanni Grade-III successfiiUy coiapletes his probation period; he wfll be autoinaticaUy regularized/confirmed on fhe regular post. He refers to fhe provisions ofRule 7 offhe atbresaid Rules 1997. When fhe service of the petitioner is beiug govemed by a particular Rule aad fhe service conditions are to be detennitied under fhe said Rule and it also provide for regularization/ confirmation after a paiticular penodj.e. after coiupletion offhe probation period, then it caanot be said fhat the nature of appointtaent was a teniporary one. Once the appoiataient is uiade under a particular Statute, the seryice conditions aad services arc to be govemed by the provisions of the said statute aud the eiuployee wfll attam a pardcular status in his service ^ESSi ^ -^^ W.P.(S) No. 7255 of2007 T^ OLejL.en'oic'ni ^ .^6;- statute Itself, which, fhe petitioner wiU also attaiii after successful coiupletion of fhe specified period aud after rendering satisfactoiy services as per fhe rules. I do not find aay force ia the contention advaaced by leamed counsel for the petitioner. The petitiou appears to be ra.iscouceived. It is disposed ofwith tbe aforesaid observations. No orders as to cost. i——- 1 SdA ! Sunil Kumar Sinha ! Judge ,fr'— Sunita