Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rekha Galphat vs The Commissioner on 25 September, 2025
1 WP-15138-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 25th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 15138 of 2024
REKHA GALPHAT
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prakash Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Aryaditya Singh - Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/State.
ORDER
By way of this Petition, the Petitioner has called into question the
Order Annexure P-23 whereby the representation of the Petitioner for grant
of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the
Petitioner has not acquired the qualification of Teachers Eligibility Test (
"TET" for short).
2. The aforesaid issue has already been decided by a Division Bench
of this Court in Review Petition No.1121/2025 whereby it has been held that
for appointment on an post governed by Madhya Pradesh Samvida Shala
Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules 2005, the
requirement of Teachers Eligibility Test is not mandatory because there is
relaxation carved under the said Rules from acquiring TET.
3. In Review Petition No.1121/2025, the Division Bench has held as
under:-
2 WP-15138-2024
"This Review Petition is filed being aggrieved of order
dated 25.04.2025, passed in Writ Appeal No.895/2025, whereby
State had challenged the order dated 30.07.2024, passed in Writ
Petition No.11542/2021, on the ground that policy of 2014, is not
applicable for grant of compassionate appointment to a ward of
deceased 'Adhyapak' and in fact Circular dated 23.06.2010 issued
by the Under Secretary of Government of Madhya Pradesh,
School Education Department bearing No.F1-23/2010/20- 1, is
applicable and secondly, on the ground that petitioner therein was
not qualified to hold the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-
III.
It is submitted that Division Bench sitting at Gwalior vide
Annx.P/14 while deciding the Review Petition No.270/2025, had
entertained the Review and recalled the order dated 09.05.2024
passed in Writ Appeal No.738/2024 by restoring Writ Appeal
No.738/2024 on the ground that no document was filed by the
respondents to show that husband of the respondent was a
Government employee and nothing was placed on record to show
that the policy for appointment on compassionate ground is also
applicable to the employees of Panchayat.
Placing reliance on the said decision of Hon'ble Division
Bench at Gwalior, it is submitted that review is maintainable and
the order passed by Hon'ble Coordinate Bench needs to be set
3 WP-15138-2024
aside.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going
through the record, the controversy before the Writ Court was in
regard to eligibility of the petitioner therein to seek compassionate
appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III, on
the ground of death of the bread earner of the family, who was
working as 'Adhyapak'.
Two issues emerge; one, regarding the applicability of the
circular and two, in regard to the qualification of the writ
petitioner.
As far as applicability of 2010 policy is concerned,
Annx.P/4, itself provides for grant of compassionate appointment
to the dependents of the employees who are working in
'Adhyapak' cadre on their death in harness on the post of Samvida
Shala Shikshak Grade-III.
Even otherwise, the policy of the State Government dated
29.9.2014, is endorsed to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Panchayat and it does not carve out a Class of Panchayat Karmis
or the employees of the Panchayat to be excluded from the
domain of its operation in regard to grant of compassionate
appointment.
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 ?
4 WP-15138-2024
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 appointment - (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.
The State to bear cost of this litigation, which is quantified
at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand). It will be paid in the
account of writ petitioner within seven days through an Account
5 WP-15138-2024
Payee Cheque or NIFT transfer in her account."
4. Learned counsel for the State has objected to the aforesaid
proposition on the ground that there has been amendment subsequently in
the recruitment Rules and the Notification dated 01.12.2022 is placed on
record.
5. However, the said amendment would not come to rescue of the
respondents because the employee died much prior to the issuance of
notification dated 01.12.2022 and the said notification would not apply to the
Petitioner who is seeking compassionate appointment on account of a death
that occurred in year 2018.
6. Consequently, the rejection Order Annexure P-23 is set aside. The
respondents are directed to consider the case of Petitioner for appointment
on any post governed under the Rules of 2005 without insisting on the
qualification of TET in view of the judgment of Division Bench in Review
Petition No.1121/2025.
7. Let the consideration be made by the respondents within a period of
45 days from the date of production of certified copy of this Order.
8. In the above terms, the Petition stands allowed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
