NEUTRAL CITATION NO.
2024:MPHC-GWL:21367
1 WP-37640-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 29th OF NOVEMBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 37640 of 2024
SHUBHAM SEN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Manish Gurjar -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Dixit - Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed seeking following reliefs:
"(i) That, the impugned order dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure P/1)
may be directed to be set aside and quashed.
(ii) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be granted."
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that after death of his father,
petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade 3 on the basis of
compassionate appointment. A condition was imposed in the appointment
order that petitioner will be required to obtain CPCT Examination Certificate
within a period of three years from the date of appointment. However, it is
submitted that petitioner could not obtain the CPCT Examination Certificate.
Thereafter, by order dated 09.2.2023, further time of three months was
granted to obtain the CPCT Examination Certificate. Thereafter, by letter
dated 23.6.2023, further time of three months was given. Accordingly, by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 12/3/2024
5:04:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21367
2 WP-37640-2024
order dated 29.11.2023, petitioner was directed to submit his CPCT
Examination Certificate by 20.1.2024. Thereafter, he was given last
opportunity to appear and clear CPCT Examination which was to be held on
29.2.2024. Since the petitioner could not clear CPCT Examination, therefore,
he has been removed from services by order dated 19.11.2024. Petitioner's
case may be considered for appointment on compassionate ground for a post
for which passing of CPCT Examination is not required. Thus, it is submitted
that he may be given appointment either on the post of Peon or Chowkidar.
However, no such representation has been made to respondents. It is further
submitted by counsel for petitioner that this Court in the case of Hiraman
Gaikwad Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others decided on 6th
November, 2023 passed in WP No. 27996/2023 has held that since the
appointment was made on compassionate ground, therefore, zone of
consideration is completely different. If the petitioner could not acquire the
minimum qualification for holding the post on which he was given
appointment on compassionate ground, then his case may be considered for a
lower post for which such qualification is not required. Thus, it is submitted
that in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Hiraman
Gaikwad (supra), respondents may be directed to consider his case for any
lower post.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
4. This Court in the case of Hiraman Gaikwad (supra) has held as
under:
"1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 12/3/2024
5:04:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21367
3 WP-37640-2024
been filed against the order dated 4.9.2023 passed by the
Commissioner, Urban Administration and Development
Department/respondent no.2 in file No.Estb./3/VN-234/2022.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was given appointment on
compassionate ground on the post of Assistant Grade III by order
dated 21.6.2019. However, a condition was also imposed that he
has to pass Computer Diploma and Proficiency Certificate Test
(CPCT) in accordance with clause 6.5 of the Govt. Circular dated
29.9.2014 with the rider that in case if the aforesaid condition is
not fulfilled within a period of three years, his services will be
terminated.
3. It is submitted that since the petitioner have failed to clear
CPCT examination, therefore, by impugned order his services
have been brought to an end. It is submitted by counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner was granted appointment on
compassionate ground and, therefore, the impugned order should
not have been passed by bringing his service to an end but should
have proceeded further in accordance with law laid down by this
court in the case of Virat Dev Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others
decided on 31st August, 2023 in W.P.No.16770/2022 and
Smt.Pratibha Upadhyaya Vs. State of M.P. and others , decided on
21 st September, 2023 in W.P.No.18444 of 2022.
4. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for
the State. It is submitted that in spite of multiple opportunities, the
petitioner could not clear the CPCT examination. It was
specifically mentioned in the appointment order that the petitioner
is required to pass the CPCT examination and having failed to do
so, the respondents were left with no other option but to bring the
service of the petitioner to an end.
5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.
6. The petitioner was granted appointment on compassionate
ground. Therefore, the zone of consideration was completely
different. However, this court can also not ignore the minimum
qualifications which are required for efficient working of the
employees.
7. Furthermore, this Court in the case of Virat Dev Singh (supra)
has held as under :-
““7. However, one thing is clear that it is not a case of direct
recruitment but it is a case of appointment on compassionate
ground. Therefore, only question for consideration is as to
whether services of petitioner are liable to be terminated on
the ground of non-qualifying CPCT or he can be
accommodated against any post which does not require
CPCT scored card? Since the reason for appointment of
petitioner was compassionate on account of death of his
father, therefore, criteria for appointment of petitioner was
different. Petitioner was granted appointment on
compassionate ground in order to tide over the situation
which had arisen on account of
untimely death of his father.
8. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 12/3/2024
5:04:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21367
4 WP-37640-2024
opinion that although it was necessary for petitioner to
qualify CPCT but having failed to do so, his services may not
be terminated. Respondents must consider the case of
petitioner from the following angles:
(i) If any Class-III cadre post is available for which CPCT
score card is not required, then the case of petitioner for his
appointment on the said post may be considered.
(ii) If no such post in Class-III cadre is available, then the
case of petitioner can be considered for Class-IV post.
9. Petitioner shall positively submit his undertaking/consent
for his consideration to a different Class-III cadre post for
which CPCT score card is not required or for Class-IV post.
10. If the consent is furnished within a period of one month
from today, then the decision shall be taken by respondents
in this regard within a period of one month thereafter. If the
petitioner fails to submit his consent before the competent
authority within a period of one month from today, then
natural consequence of order dated 12.07.2022 shall follow.”
8. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in the terms and
conditions of paragraphs 7 to 10 of judgment passed by this Court
in the case of Virat Dev Singh (supra) .
9. It is made clear that the respondents shall consider the case of
the petitioner for his appointment on any other post for which
CPCT Score Card is not required and the petitioner shall
positively submit his undertaking / consent for consideration of his
case for any other post whether Class-III or Class-IV.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not considered any post for
which the petitioner may be found to be eligible and it is left
exclusively to the discretion of the authorities to offer post for
which CPCT score card is not necessary.
11. With aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of."
5. Accordingly, if petitioner makes a representation for his
appointment on Class IV post, respondents are directed to consider the
representation of petitioner. The representation shall be decided in
accordance with law laid down by this Court in the case of Hiraman
Gaikwad (supra) and necessary orders be passed within a period of two
months from date of production of certified copy of this order as well as
making of representation.
6. Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
7. Needless to mention that since this petition is being decided finally
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 12/3/2024
5:04:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21367
5 WP-37640-2024
without issuing notice to respondent No. 2, therefore, if respondent No. 2 is
aggrieved by this order, then he shall have the right to file an application for
restoration of the petition.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AKS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 12/3/2024
5:04:59 PM
