SMT. SHITALA DIWAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's husband while working as Teacher (Panchayat) at Government High School, Baya, Janpad Panchayat Kasdol died in harness on 30.10.2011. She made an application for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat). Since the petitioner did not have qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) as per applicable rules, her case was not considered and ultimately, matter of appointment was sent to the State Government seeking instructions. The State Government by order dated 8.1.2016 issued the circular holding that dependents of the deceased Teacher (Panchayat) who have no minimum qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), their cases may be considered for appointment on the post of Secretary (Panchayat). Accordingly, case of the petitioner was considered for the post of Secretary (Panchayat) at Gram Panchayat Hatoud and she was granted appointment by order dated 12.5.2016 on the post of Secretary (Panchayat). Thereafter, notice dated 30.9.2016 (Annexure P/1) was issued by respondent no. 3 stating that the Government has issued the instructions dated 24.8.2016 holding that earlier circular dated 8.1.2016 would be applicable to the dependents of Teacher (Panchayat) who have died on or after 8.1.2016, therefore, the show-cause notice as to why petitioner's appointment be not cancelled has been issued, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stating inter-alia that the respondents have already made up their mind to cancel her appointment and circular dated 8.1.2016 has been issued by the State Government, whereas instruction dated 24.8.2016 has been issued by the Deputy Secretary of the State Government, which is not by the State Government, therefore, the impugned notice deserves to be set aside.

(2.) Mr. Matin Siddique, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner's husband died on 30.10.2011 and case of the petitioner was pending consideration and ultimately on the basis of instructions given by the State Government for consideration on the post of Secretary (Panchayat) by the circular dated 8.1.2016 her case has been considered and she has been granted compassionate appointment, therefore, her appointment cannot be interfered with on the basis of instructions dated 24.8.2016 and as such, the impugned notice dated 30.9.2016 (Annexure P/1) deserves to be quashed.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.Gary Mukhopadhyay, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents no. 1 and 2, would submit that the circular dated 8.1.2016 is not applicable to the petitioner as the petitioner's husband died on 30.10.2011, therefore, respondent no. 3 has rightly issued the notice to the petitioner. He would further submit that memo dated 24.8.2016 is merely classificatory circular. The circular dated 8.1.2016 does not have retrospective effect. The said circular has been issued by the State Government to consider the pending cases of the dependents of Teacher (Panchayat) who have died on or after 8.1.2016, therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.