The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a candidate seeking compassionate appointment cannot be denied the benefit merely because he failed to acquire the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification within the prescribed period when the delay was attributable to the cancellation of the examination due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In Vasudev Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., the petitioner sought compassionate appointment following the death of his father, a government employee. His claim was opposed on the ground that he had not cleared the TET, a mandatory qualification for teaching posts, within the stipulated time. The State argued that failure to meet the qualification deadline rendered him ineligible, regardless of the circumstances causing the delay.
The Court, however, distinguished between delay caused by the candidate’s own negligence and delay arising from external, uncontrollable factors. It observed that the TET examinations were cancelled or postponed across multiple sessions during the pandemic, rendering it impossible for candidates to appear or qualify within the normal timelines. The Court held that where the inability to acquire the qualification stems from administrative failure or force majeure events such as a public health crisis, and not from any lapse on the part of the candidate, such delay cannot be held against the candidate for the purpose of denying compassionate appointment.
The Bench emphasized that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased government servant, particularly to prevent destitution. Imposing rigid procedural conditions without regard to extraordinary circumstances defeating the very purpose of the scheme would be contrary to equity and public policy. The Court noted that the petitioner had otherwise satisfied all eligibility criteria and had acted in good faith to qualify for the post.
The Court further held that the State cannot benefit from its own inability to conduct examinations and then use that failure as a basis to deny legitimate claims. It directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s claim in light of the pandemic-related disruption and to grant compassionate appointment if all other conditions are met.
The judgment adds to a growing body of jurisprudence recognizing that procedural requirements must yield to substantive justice when external events beyond a candidate’s control disrupt normal processes. The Court refrained from commenting on the general validity of the TET requirement but stressed that its application must be flexible and humane in exceptional circumstances.
The operative outcome of the case is that the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment is to be re-evaluated by the respondent State, with due consideration given to the impact of the pandemic on his ability to acquire the TET qualification. No final direction for appointment was issued, but the Court made it clear that denial based solely on the pandemic-related delay in obtaining TET is unsustainable in law.
The decision underscores the principle that administrative rules must be applied with sensitivity to unforeseen crises, and that claimants should not be penalized for systemic failures outside their control. It reaffirms the humanitarian foundation of compassionate appointment schemes in public employment.