RINKU SAH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was born on 09.10.1995. She was married on 29.06.2012 to Raj Kumar Sah, who was employed in the Government of Chhattisgarh as a Police Constable. He died on 15.02.2014. The service records of that deceased employee showed the Petitioner as his wife. She is being paid pension referable to the late Raj Kumar Sah and her name figures in the pension papers. Following her husband's demise in harness, Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. That stands rejected primarily on the ground that she is disqualified from being appointed to government service in terms of Rule 6(5) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961; for short 'General Rules'. The said Sub-rule is therefore challenged by the Petitioner as ultra vires the Constitution. Her application to be appointed as a Constable is rejected also on the ground that the materials produced by her, on cross-verification, do not establish that she possesses the minimum qualification required for that post. Hence, this writ petition is filed challenging such rejection of Petitioner's application for compassionate appointment; and also, Sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of the General Rules.

(2.) In response to the writ petition, the State filed its pleadings standing by the impugned rule and pleading that the Petitioner has not been able to establish that she is the widow of the late Raj Kumar Sah and further that the Petitioner is not qualified to be appointed to the post of Police Constable for which she has applied. The Petitioner has filed her rejoinder. Alongwith her pleadings, she has placed documents as annexures.

(3.) The questions that arise for decision in this writ petition, at the outset, are as to the validity of Rule 6(5) of the General Rules and as to what, if any, is the relief that the Petitioner is entitled to on the face of that Sub-rule, if that provision were to stand.