Chhattisgarh HC Quashes Denial of Compassionate Appointment Over TET Delay Caused by COVID-19

Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi holds that a teacher's son cannot be denied compassionate appointment for missing a TET deadline the pandemic itself postponed.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has quashed an order declaring Vasudev Sahu ineligible for compassionate appointment, ruling that the delay in clearing the Teacher Eligibility Test was not attributable to him but to the COVID-19 pandemic. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, hearing the writ petition under Article 226, held that Sahu had, in substance, acquired the required qualifications within the three-year window granted to him, since the very TET examination scheduled for March 2020 was cancelled by the authorities and only conducted in January 2022. The court set aside the rejection order dated 06.12.2022 and directed the Director, Panchayat, to reconsider his claim within 45 days.

A Compassionate Appointment Claim Stalled by Missing Qualifications

Sahu's father, Late Shri Prahlad Sahu, an Assistant Teacher (LB) at a Government Middle School in Kurud, District Dhamtari, died in harness on 07.04.2017. Sahu applied for compassionate appointment on 13.06.2017. At that stage he held only a Class-12 certificate and lacked the Bachelor of Education or Diploma in Education qualification, along with the Teacher Eligibility Test clearance, both required under a Circular dated 07.02.2014.

The competent authority at District Panchayat, Dhamtari, by order dated 12.07.2017, gave him three years from his father's death to acquire these qualifications. Sahu passed the D.El.Ed. examination on 22.05.2019, becoming eligible to sit for TET. He applied for the TET scheduled for 22.03.2020, but the examination was cancelled due to the pandemic, as recorded in a press note dated 13.03.2020 issued by the Advisor, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board.

Sahu then submitted a series of applications—dated 22.04.2020, 11.05.2020, 21.06.2020 and 21.03.2022—seeking extension of time. His last application was forwarded by the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Dhamtari, to the Commissioner, Directorate of Panchayat, on 20.04.2022. Meanwhile, the postponed TET for 2020 was finally held on 09.01.2022. Sahu appeared and passed, as shown in his certificate and marksheet. Despite this, the Director Panchayat rejected his candidature on 06.12.2022, holding that he had failed to acquire the requisite qualifications within the stipulated period.

Whether the Three-Year Window Could Absorb a Pandemic-Caused Delay

Counsel for Sahu argued that he had done everything within his control inside the three-year period ending in April 2020. He passed D.El.Ed. in 2019 and applied for the TET scheduled for March 2020 well before the deadline. The examination's cancellation was the state's own act, not his default. He kept applying for an extension through 2020 and 2022, and cleared the exam the moment it was actually held.

The State respondents, along with respondent No.3, relied on the 2014 Circular and the 2017 order granting three years, contending that Sahu ought to have obtained both B.Ed./D.Ed. and TET by April 2020. Since he did not hold TET clearance by that date, they argued his candidature was rightly held ineligible, regardless of when the exam was eventually conducted.

How the Bench Read the Record

Justice Chandravanshi examined the sequence of dates closely. The petitioner obtained his D.El.Ed. certificate from the National Institute of Open Schooling in 2019, within the permitted window. For TET, the court noted that no material was placed on record by the respondents to show any TET examination had been conducted between 2017 and March 2020. The only relevant examination scheduled in that period, for 22.03.2020, was cancelled by the authorities themselves on account of the pandemic.

The court observed that the TET examination for 2020 was “ultimately conducted on 09.01.2022,” with results declared on 22.04.2022, and that Sahu qualified in that very examination. Since the exam scheduled within his three-year period was the one he eventually cleared once it was actually held, the bench found no basis to treat him as having defaulted on the timeline set by the 2017 order.

The judgment also invoked the Supreme Court's pandemic-era limitation directions in WP(PIL) No.27/2020 and Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020, where the Supreme Court, by order dated 06.05.2020, excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for computing limitation. Justice Chandravanshi held that “the said principle would equally apply to actions of State Instrumentalities in the present case,” extending the logic of that exclusion to the departmental deadline fixed for Sahu.

Findings on Eligibility and the Direction to Reconsider

On this basis, the court concluded that Sahu had acquired the requisite qualifications within the three-year period effectively available to him, once the pandemic-caused disruption was accounted for. It held him “very much eligible to be considered for grant of compassionate appointment” on account of his father's death in harness.

The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 06.12.2022, issued by the Director Panchayat, was quashed. The respondent authorities were directed to consider Sahu's case for compassionate appointment afresh, in accordance with law.

Order

The court directed that, given the time already elapsed since Sahu's original 2017 application, his case be decided by the respondent authorities preferably within 45 days from receipt of the order. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications, if any, stood disposed of.