Compassionate-Appointment Claim Stays Dismissed As Chhattisgarh HC Says Counsel’s Absence Alone Is No Ground For Review

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicant established an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review or recall of the order dismissing his writ petition on merits in counsel’s absence.

The court held

The Court held that the applicant had not shown an error apparent or any other ground warranting review or recall of the order dated 5 February 2026.

It also directed

The review petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

01Facts

The applicant’s father, a Rural Engineering Service employee, died in harness on 9 April 2017.

¶ 1

The applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment was rejected because his elder brother was employed as a Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and his sister worked at the State Bank of India.

¶ 1

After an earlier writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh, the applicant’s subsequent petition, WPS No. 8934 of 2023, was dismissed on merits on 5 February 2026 in the absence of his counsel.

¶ 1

He sought review and recall, arguing, among other things, that his siblings’ employment and separate households should not disqualify him.

¶ 1–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicant established an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review or recall of the order dismissing his writ petition on merits in counsel’s absence.

¶ 3–8

ii.2. Whether the review petition could be used to reconsider the effect of the siblings’ employment and the compassionate-appointment policy on the applicant’s claim.

¶ 5, 9–10

03Law Applied

Review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or as an opportunity to rehear a matter on its merits.

¶ 7

An error apparent must be self-evident and must not require elaborate reasoning, reappreciation of facts, or fresh examination of the law. The Court relied on Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, (1987) 1 SCC 61; Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170; Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co., (1996) 10 SCC 174; Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224; Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, (2013) 2 SCC 1; and Sasi v. Aravindakshan Nair, (2017) 4 SCC 692, for these principles.

¶ 7

04Reasoning

The Court treated the arguments concerning the siblings’ employment, the 8 January 2015 Government circular, and the siblings’ separate households as matters requiring examination of policy provisions and factual circumstances, rather than as demonstrating a patent error in the order under review.

¶ 5, 9–10

It also held that counsel’s absence, by itself, did not establish an error apparent or entitle the applicant to recall of an order decided on merits.

¶ 8

Reconsidering those matters would amount to a rehearing, which falls outside review jurisdiction.

¶ 6, 10