SWETA SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dtd. 23/11/2021 (Annexure P1) passed by respondent No.7/District Education Officer, Bilaspur by which the petitioner's appointment as Assistant GradeIII has been revoked by respondent No.7 holding that she was not eligible to be appointed on compassionate basis for the post of Assistant GradeIII as her husband and her husband's brother both were in roll of the State Government which bars her from compassionate appointment.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that her fatherinlaw Manmohan Singh Pawar while working as Block Education Officer, Surajpur died in harness on 16/12/2018 and thereafter the petitioner made an application on 7/1/2019 for grant of compassionate appointment and ultimately with a delay of 2½ years she was granted compassionate appointment on 2/6/2021 (Annexure P13), but thereafter she was subjected to showcause notice on 26/10/2021 (Annexure P14) stating that her husband namely Basant Pratap Singh was already working as Shiksha Karmi GradeI w.e.f. 30/8/2013 and her husband's brother namely Akhilendra Pratap Singh was also working as Shiksha Karmi GradeII w.e.f. 16/7/2010, which she has suppressed and ultimately, by the impugned order, her appointment has been revoked. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner's husband and the petitioner's husband's brother both were Shiksha Karmi on the date of sad demise of her fatherin law, therefore, they were not Government servant as on that day and therefore, revocation of her appointment is bad in law.

(3.) Return has been filed by the respondents/State, stating interalia that the petitioner's husband Basant Pratap Singh and the petitioner's husband's brother Akhilendra Pratap Singh both were holding and working as Government servant on the demise of her fatherinlaw and therefore, she was ineligible for appointment on the post of Assistant GradeIII on compassionate basis and she has suppressed the material fact and got appointment, which has rightly been revoked by respondent No.7, which calls for no interference and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.