Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Kumar Singh vs State Of M.P. on 29 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41516
1 WP-8359-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 29th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 11756 of 2020
KU. SHIWANI KACHER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sunanda Kesharwani - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Supriya Singh Dy. Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 8359 of 2022
RAVI KUMAR SINGH
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari-Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Supriya Singh- Dy. Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
ORDER
Both the petitions have been filed seek identical reliefs and
challenging the rejection order on identical grounds, therefore they are being
decided by this common order.
2. The petitioners applied for compassionate appointment being
dependents of deceased employees and their applications for appointment as
Samvida Shala Shikshak was rejected on the ground that the petitioners have
not qualified Teachers Eligibility Test (TET for short) and therefore, they are
not entitled for appointment on compassionate basis.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41516
2 WP-8359-2022
3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners have all other
requisite qualification for being granted compassionate appointment on the
post of Samvida Shala Shikshak and only for want of TET qualification they
cannot be deprived of compassionate appointment.
4. The aforesaid issue has been recently been decided by a Division
Bench in R.P. No. 1121/2025 in the following manner:-
"Another issue which emerges is that whether a person who was qualified and
was having D.Ed. qualification, is entitled to grant of compassionate
appointment or not ?
As far as Madhya Pradesh Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and
Conditions of Contract), Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 2005'
for short), are concerned, Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 2005, provides for
'Samvida Shala Shikshak Eligibility Examination', besides prescribing
qualification for appointment.
As far as Rule 8 of the Rules of 2005, are concerned, they carve out a specific
exception from passing eligibility examination in the following words :-
"8. Compassionate appointmen t - (1)...... No eligibility examination shall
be required for compassionate appointment under Rule 8."
Thus, when admittedly the writ petitioner was having basic qualification for
appointment as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III i.e. of D.Ed. and there is an
exemption in the Rules, itself from passing of the eligibility examination for
seeking compassionate appointment, then when tested, then impugned order
cannot be said to be faulted with. The reasoning given by Hon'ble Gwalior
Bench of non-production of documents etc. is not available in the present case
and, therefore, Review Petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. "
5. In view of the rule 8 of the Rules 2005 as relied in the said
judgment, specific exception has been carved out for qualifying TET
qualification for candidates seeking compassionate appointments. Therefore,
the impugned rejection order deserves to be and is hereby set-aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41516
3 WP-8359-2022
6. The respondents are directed to deal with the application of the
petitioners for compassionate appointment by treating them qualified to be
given appointment and they shall not stress on requirement of the petitioner
to have qualified TET. However, the respondent shall examine the case of
the petitioners as on the anvil of other requirements under the policy of
compassionate appointment.
7. Let the needful be done within 45 days.
8. The petition is allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
