Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ranjana Pal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37722
1 WP-1575-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 12th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1575 of 2024
RANJANA PAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aman Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Namdeo - Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
ORDER
The petitioner has put to challenge the order Annexure P-1 dated
08.09.023 whereby the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment
has been rejected by the respondents on the ground that the father of
petitioner expired on 03.01.2014 while working as Sahayak Adhyapak in
Adhyapak cadre and the petitioner can only be considered for appointment
on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III as per policy dated
01.04.2010 read with policy dated 28.12.2005. It is mentioned in the
impugned order that the petitioner cannot be considered for any Class-IV
post as in terms of the aforesaid policies which are available for grant of
compassionate appointment to dependents of teachers in Adhyapak cadre,
they can only be considered for Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III and the
petitioner failed to obtain requisite qualification up to 7 years from the date
of death of deceased employee.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37722
2 WP-1575-2024
2. From a perusal of the documents placed on record, it is evident
that the father of the petitioner expired on 03.01.2014 and the petitioner
obtained the qualification of Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) which is essential
qualification for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-
III only on 12.11.2021. Therefore, she failed to obtain the requisite
qualification within 7 years of death. Earlier the case of the petitioner was
rejected vide Annexure P-6 dated 14.10.2020 on the ground that the
petitioner does not have the D.Ed. qualification and therefore, this Court vide
order Annexure P-8 without expressing opinion on merits of the case,
directed the petitioner to move application for Class-IV post and now the
application for Class-IV post has been rejected on the ground that the
petitioner has no right to be appointed for Class-IV post.
3. As per the policy of the State Government for Teachers in
Adhyapak cadre dated 01.04.2010 their dependents can only be considered
as per policy applicable for Shiksha Karmis which is dated 28.12.2005 as per
which the dependents can only be considered for appointment as Samvida
Shala Shikshak Grade III. The essential qualification for Samvida Shala
Shikshak Grade-III is Diploma in Education which the petitioner admittedly
failed to obtain within 7 years of date of death of deceased employee.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, relied on the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench in WP No.4685/2023. However, the said
order would not help the petitioner because in the said case in terms of some
circular dated 01.02.2021, the candidate therein was appointment on the post
of Lab Assistant. However, the petitioner has not qualified Class-XII
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37722
3 WP-1575-2024
examination with Science subject, therefore she cannot seek parity from the
aforesaid order.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to another
order of the Coordinate Bench in WP No.12502 of 2017 as per which the
dependents can be considered on some other posts as the candidate was not
qualified for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II. However, in the
said case the candidate was duly qualified for Samvida Shala Shikshak
Grade-III because within 7 years of the death of the teacher, she was having
qualification of B.Sc. in Mathematics, M.A. Economics and Bachelor in
Education. In such circumstances, this Court directed that her application can
be considered for any other post. Even otherwise, the said order was passed
without reply of the respondents and by drawing adverse inference against
the respondents. However, in the present case, the respondents have filed
reply and have brought the circular dated 01.04.2010 on record before this
Court which cannot be ignored by this Court which opens the avenue of
compassionate appointment only at par with Shiksha Karmis.
6. In view of the aforesaid, no interference can be made in the order
Annexure P-1. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
nks
