Compassionate Appointment Rejected by The District Education Officer – Not Challenged by The Petitioner Become Final: Chhattisgarh High Court

1NAFRHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPURWrit PetitionNo.12416Satish Rangari S o Late Shri Shatrughan Rangari Agedabout 28 years R o Vill. Badra Post Kerawahi Tahsil Makdi Civil & rev. Distt.Kondagaon­­­­ Petitioner Versus 1.State of C.G. Through the Secretary Education Department Mantralaya Naya Raipur Civil & Revenue Distt­Raipur3.The Block Education Officer Block Makdi Distt.Kondagaon ­­­­ RespondentsFor Petitioner :Mr.Prafull Bharat Senior Advocate with Mr.Keshav Dewangan Advocate For Respondents :Mr.Amrito Das Addl.A.G.Hon ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. AgrawalOrder on Board06 12 20211.Shri Shatrughan Rangari while working as Assistant Teacherdied in harness on 5.2.2000 at that time the petitionerwas minor therefore he could not move an application forcompassionate appointment. When the petitioner becamemajor in the year 2006 then ultimately he filed anapplication for compassionate appointment on 19.8.2006 which was processed and ultimately the District EducationOfficer Jagdalpur by order dated 1.8.2013which has beencalled in question by way of this writ petition statinginter­alia that the petitioner is entitled forcompassionate appointment.2.Return has been filed opposing the writ petition statingthat the petitioner s application for compassionateappointment has already been rejected by the DistrictEducation Officer Jagdalpur vide order dated 1.8.2013(Annexure R­3) which has become final and again theapplication dated 17.6.2014 has been rejected by theimpugned order dated 2.7.2014as such thewrit petition is liable to be dismissed. 3.Mr.Prafull Bharat learned Senior Counsel with Mr.KeshavDewangan learned counsel for the petitioner would submitthat the petitioner is entitled for compassionateappointment and the impugned order dated 2.7.2014(Annexure P­8) passed by the Collector Kondagaon deservesto be set aside. 4.On the other hand Mr.Amrito Das learned AdditionalAdvocate General for the respondents State would opposethe writ petition and submit that the order dated 1.8.2013(Annexure R­3) has become final and therefore thepetitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment.Even otherwise the order dated 2.7.2014and that order has become final asit has not been challenged by the petitioner andthereafter again second application was filed on17.6.2014 which has been rejected by respondent No.2holding that in view of delay in making applicationcompassionate appointment cannot be granted. 7.The fact remains that the petitioner s father died on5.2.2000 and the petitioner s first application forcompassionate appointment was rejected on 1.8.2013(Annexure R­3) which has not been challenged by thepetitioner and that order has become final and thereafter second application dated 17.6.2014 could not have beenfiled as his earlier application has already been rejectedon merits by order dated 1.8.2013Judge B 

Summary: Petitioner’s first application for compassionate appointment was rejected, and that decision was not appealed; as a result, his second application could not be made because his first application had already been rejected on the merits by order is upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh through the learned bench led by Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal in the case of Satish Rangari Vs. State Of Chhattisgarh (WP(S) 1242 of 2016). Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father died on 5.2.2000, and the petitioner’s first application for compassionate appointment was rejected on 1.8.2013 , an order that the petitioner has not challenged and that has become final. When the petitioner became major in 2006, he filed an application for compassionate appointment on 19.8.2006, which was processed, but the District Education Officer, Jagdalpur, by order dated 1.8.2013  rejected the application, holding that it was filed after 8 years from the date of his father’s death, and that order was not challenged. So, the petitioner’s second application dated 17.6.2014 could not have been filed because his earlier application had already been rejected on merits by a judge. The court also stated that even if the petitioner had been present for the past 21 years after his father’s death, giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner would serve no meaningful purpose. As a result, court find no illegality or perversity in the order dismissing the petitioner’s compassionate appointment application. As a result, the writ petition, which lacks merit, is liable to be rejected and is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.