Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17315
1 WP-27033-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 11th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 27033 of 2023
DEEPAK SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. Padam Shri Agrawal - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by order, dated 08-07-2018 (Annexure
P/1), whereby the petitioner was asked by the respondents to produce the
certificate of his TET qualification, failing which, his case will be considered
for grant of ex-gratia amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner has also
challenged the order, dated 02-12-2019 (Annexure P/2), whereby the
respondents have held him entitled to ex-gratia amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in
lieu of compassionate appointment.
[ 2 ] . The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the
petitioner's father late Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma was working as Assistant
Teacher and he died-in-harness on 21-06-2013. The petitioner since was
minor on the date of death of his father, he made an application for
compassionate appointment on attaining the age of majority. The
respondents considered his application and vide communication, dated 08-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17315
2 WP-27033-2023
07-2018, the petitioner was informed that he is required to submit certificate
of TET qualification for appointment which is mandatory for appointment on
the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Varg-III. It was stated in the
communication that if the petitioner fails to submit the certificate, his case
will be considered for grant of ex-gratia amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. When the
petitioner failed to submit the qualification, vide order, dated 02-12-2019
(Annexure P/2), the petitioner was held not entitled for compassionate
appointment and have been held entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards ex-gratia
amount. Challenging these two communications, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition.
[3]. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
attained the age of majority in the month of June' 2016 and, therefore, it was
not possible for him to acquire TET qualification. He submitted that since
inception, the petitioner is requesting for consideration of his case for
compassionate appointment on some other post for which, he possess
qualification. Learned counsel refers to the applications, dated 17-07-2018 &
21-06-2023 (Annexure P/7) filed alongwith the writ petition wherein he
requested the respondents for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel
further submits that the matter of compassionate appointment is an exception
to the regular mode of recruitment and, therefore, his case ought to have
been considered for the post for which the petitioner is eligible. He placed
reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of WP No.
4685/2023 (Surendra Pratap Singh Vs. The State of M.P. & Ors.) & WP No.
26899 of 2024 (Mayank Singh Thakur Vs. The State of M.P. & Ors.)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17315
3 WP-27033-2023
[4]. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer
made by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that since the petitioner was
not holding TET qualification, he could not have been appointed on the post
of Samvida Shala Shikshak Varg-III. It is her submission that the respondents
were justified in offering ex-gratia amount to the petitioner in lieu of
compassionate appointment. Learned counsel also raised an objection with
regard to delay on the part of petitioner in approaching the Court inasmuch
as the impugned order was passed, on 02-12-2019, challenging the same, the
petitioner filed the present writ petition on 16-10-2023. She, therefore, prays
for dismissal of writ petition.
[5]. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
[6]. Learned counsel for petitioner is justified in making a submission
that, if the petitioner was not eligible for appointment on the post of Samvida
Shala Shikshak Varg-III, the petitioner could have been considered for
appointment against any other post for which he possess qualification.
Therefore, the rejection of his claim for appointment is unjustified. The
similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Surendra Pratap
Singh (supra) and Mayank Singh Thakur (supra).
[7]. So far as the objection of learned counsel for the respondents
regarding delay in approaching this Court is concerned, it is seen that the
petitioner has been consistently requesting the respondents to consider his
case for appointment on any other post for which he is qualified. The
application submitted by the petitioner has already been placed on record.
Even after the passing of impugned order on 02-12-2019 also, the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17315
4 WP-27033-2023
made an application to the respondents reiterating his request for
appointment on any other post. However, the same was not considered by
the respondents. It is also a fact known to all that from March' 2020 till
February' 2022, the entire country was facing COVID-19 pandemic and,
therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for delay in approaching
this Court at least for this period. Thus, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the petitioner was totally
inactive during the period of four years and was not pursuing his claim for
compassionate appointment.
[8]. Considering the aforesaid, the impugned order, dated 02-12-2019
(Annexure P/2), so far as it relates to petitioner is set-aside. The respondents
are directed to consider the petitioner's case for grant of compassionate
appointment on any other post for which he is qualified and eligible.
[9]. Let necessary exercise be done in this regard within a period of 90
days from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.
[10]. The petition is accordingly, disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
