Employment of Family Members as Shiksha Karmi is Not a Ground to Reject Compassionate Appointment.

The petitioner’s father, an Accountant in the Block Education Office, Mohla, died in harness on 31.08.2010

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 19.11.2010.

On 01.12.2010, the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, returned the application, noting that the petitioner’s mother and elder brother were already employed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III

On 05.10.2021, the District Education Officer formally rejected the claim on the ground that family members were in government service

The petitioner challenged these orders, contending that Shiksha Karmis are not "civil servants" under the State

Whether Shiksha Karmis can be considered government servants/holders of civil posts under the State for the purpose of denying compassionate appointment to a dependent of a deceased government employee

The Court applied the definition of "civil servant" as interpreted in Harnarayan Yadav v. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Single Bench: ILR 2017 Chhattisgarh 1864; Division Bench: ILR 2019 Chhattisgarh 639), which established that Shiksha Karmis (now Assistant Teacher Panchayats) are appointees of Janpad Panchayats under the Rules of 2007 and Section 70(1) of the Act of 1993, rather than the State under Article 309 of the Constitution

Consequently, they do not hold civil posts and are not entitled to protections under Article 311

The Court noted that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim was based solely on the employment of his mother and brother as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III

Relying on the precedent set in Harnarayan Yadav, the Court observed that since Shiksha Karmis are under the administrative and disciplinary control of the Janpad Panchayat rather than the State government, they cannot be termed "government servants"

Because the family members did not hold "civil posts," their employment did not trigger the disqualification criteria for compassionate appointment intended for families where a member is already a government servant

The Court found that the respondent authorities erred in law by equating Panchayat appointees with civil servants

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders dated 01.12.2010 and 05.10.2021. The District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, was directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment in light of the legal principles established within 120 days