Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hiraman Gaikwad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 November, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 6th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 27996 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
HIRAMAN GAIKWAD S/O LATE SHRI NAMDEV
GAIKWAD, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: EX ASSISTANT GRADE III A
SECTOR 68 ANNA NAGAR B.H.E.L. GOVINDPURA
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI S.K.TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
MINISTRY OF URBAN ADMINISTRATION
AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT
MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER URBAN ADMINISTRATION
AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PALIKA BHAWAN, NEAR 6 NUMBER BUS
STOP, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. JOINT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF
URBAN ADMINISTRATION AND
DEVELOPMENT , MADHYA PRADESH
PALIKA BHAWAN, NEAR 6 NUMBER BUS
STOP, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SWAPNIL GANGULY - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has 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 21st 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 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.
8. With aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
HEMANT SARAF
2023.11.06 18:39:10
+05'30'
HS
