HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETiTiGN i8) NO. 2E32 of 2095 Petitioner Jaideep Yaciav, Sio Ghasiram Yadav, raged 28 years, Resident of Bazarpara, Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh. Versus Respondents 1. State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Secretary, Government of M.P. School Education Department, Mantraiaya, Bhopal. 2. The Joint Director, Public instructions. Biiaspur Division, Biiaspur 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat—cum-Addi. Director Schooi Education, Raigarh Singie Bench :- Hon'ble Shri Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present :- Mr. A.K. Prasaoi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.V.S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate Generai with Ms. Deepali Pandey, Panel lawyer for the respondents/State. O R D E R (Passed on this 2“a day of May, 2007) ‘l. Learned counset appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 23.1.95 (Annexure N1) as Assistant Teacher on the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040/- in accordance with_ the circular dated 10.6.94 (See 18.6.94) (Annexure A/4). Accordingly, the petitioner who happens to be the grand son of the widow of the deceased empioyee, namely, Sakluram was given compassionate appointment. Subsequently, vide order dated 28.7.98 (Annexure N1), the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled in View of the circular dated 10.9.95 (Annexure R/5). The circular dated 10.9.95 provided that the appointment of other relations, namely, grand daughter, son-in-iaw, brother-in—law‘ brother. sister. nephew. niece, daughter—in-Iaw, sister~in~law etc. was not in accordance with law. Therefore, appointment made after 3.1.95 on the compassionate basis should be declared as illegal and be accordingly cancelled. Mr. A.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is well settled that the circular or the rule or any other statutory provision including the rules framed under Articie 309 of the Constitution of lnclia, cannot be given the retrospective effect to take away the rights accrued in favour of the government employee. ln support of his contention, he has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Tulsi Das and others vs. Govt. of AP. and others (2003) 1 SCC 364. Per contra, Mr. V.V.S. Murthy, learned Deputy Advocate General with Ms. Deepali Pandey, learned Panel lawyer appearing for the respondents submits that the appointment of the petitioner is even otherwise illegal and the retrospective effect can be given to the circular dated 10.6.94. l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. it is evident that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher vide order dated 23.1 .95 was in accordance with the circular dated 10.6.94 (Annexure A/4). Clause 17 of the circular dated 10.6.94 reads as under:- . "11a math: aim dt meat W ail—sf m germ gait Wéewmatfaqastsihaswdt mammaiaq arenastafa‘darfem manwsamma‘emawaea i mqmwaavnatmamw eat: tat mmmmwmsnm"