7 I 0-0 lis B®ncft THE HON'BLE HIGjl COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR W. P. (Sl No. U ^&Of 2009 PETITIONER : Ku. Gomati Mandavi, D/o Late Kejauram Mandavi, aged about '3S>^years, R/o village Gaurgaon, P.d. Nathia Nawagaon, Tah^il 85 Distt. Kanker (C.G.) VER8US RESPONDENTS: ^ 1) ' State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ The Commissioner, Schedule Caste 85 Schedule Tribe Development Department, Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) 3) The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Dantewada (C.G.) 4)' The Collector, South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) 5)f The Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Dantewada (C.G.) WRIT_PETmQN UNDERARTICLE-226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner most respectfully begs to submit as under:- 1) PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER : As given in the cause title. 2) PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As given in the cause title. ^^^S^ ^fe^^%^^t''^^^^^;g3 ^i ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 4668 of 2009 PETITIONER Ku. Gomati Mandavi VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Subhash Yadav, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur Dy. AG and Shri Chandresh Shrivastava PL for the respondents/State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA O RD E R (19.10.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that her father late Kejauram Mandavi who was working as lecturer in the School Education Department died in harness on 31.10.1998. According to the petitioner, her mother is illiterate and that she is the only offspring of her parents. Further case of the petitioner is that at the time of death of her father she was just 9 year old and therefore compassionate appointment could not be given to any of her family members. According to the petitioner, after attaining the age of majority on 10.12.2007 she made an application for compassionate appointment whjch was forwarded by the Principal vide An.nexure P-2. Petitioner's further case is that her application has been rejected on 10.1.2008 vide Annexure P-3 by assigning incorrect reasons. 2.^ Counsel for the petitioner submits that purpose of filing this petition would beserved ifa direction is issued to respondent No.3for considering the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment afresh and passing appropriate order. 3. State counsel however fairly submit that the reasogs given in the order dated 10.1.2008 appear to be incorrect and that the order has not been passed pursuant to the policy of the State Government dated 2.2.2006 (Annex.ure P-4). They however submits that the petitioner has -1-t ^-7 2 — absolutely no right to get compassionate appointment for the reason that her family has survived for number of years after the death of Kejauram Mandavi even without compassionate appointment. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited submissions made by the petitioner the order dated 2.1.2008 which has been passed on wrong premises is liable to be set aside and the same is ordered accordingly. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make a fresh application to the competent authority seeking compassionate appointment and on that being done the said authority would decide the same strictly in accordance with law and the policies framed in this regard by the State Government. 5. No opinion on the rights of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been expressed by this Court and the concerned authority would be at liberty to decide the application of the petitioner by applying its own mind. rrittsr'kal