Facts
The petitioner, Nandani Tonday, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to grant her compassionate appointment following the death of her sister, Late Ms. Lekha Kumari Tondey
Source reference: p. 2The deceased was an unmarried Lecturer at Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Marwahi, who passed away on 09.05.2023
Source reference: p. 2-3The petitioner, asserting dependency alongside five other siblings, submitted an application for appointment on 10.02.2026
Source reference: p. 2The State contended that the application was not processed because it was procedurally incomplete; specifically, it lacked the signature of the Head of Office as required by a communication dated 23.04.2026
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the consideration of her compassionate appointment application despite procedural irregularities in the submission process
Source reference: p. 4Law Applied
The case is governed by the State’s policy on compassionate appointment and the procedural requirements for government service recruitment
Source reference: no citationThe central principle applied is the "proper channel" doctrine, which requires applications for compassionate appointment to be submitted through the designated administrative head (in this case, the Principal of the school) to the District Education Officer to ensure authenticity and administrative verification
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the petitioner's eligibility but focused on the administrative bottleneck identifying why the application remained unconsidered.
Source reference: p. 4The State highlighted that under the communication dated 23.04.2026, the petitioner’s application was valid in format but technically deficient because it was not routed through the proper channel (the Principal of the concerned school)
Source reference: p. 4The Court reasoned that once the petitioner cures this procedural defect by submitting the application through the prescribed Head of Office, the respondents are legally obligated to process and decide upon the claim within a reasonable timeframe, which the State proposed as 45 days
Source reference: p. 4-5Holding
The Court held that upon receipt of such a rectified application, the competent authority must consider and decide the matter in accordance with the law, preferably within 45 days
The Court disposed of the writ petition without a direct order for appointment, instead directing the petitioner to resubmit her application through the "proper channel" as per the communication dated 23.04.2026
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
NANDANI TONDAYvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in