Smt Rashmi Das vs Managing Director
2023 Latest Caselaw 17995 MP

                                                1                             W.P. No. 23623/2023


IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
               ON THE 30th OF OCTOBER, 2023
               WRIT PETITION No. 23623 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SMT RASHMI DAS WIDOW OF LATE SHRI
RAJESH DAS, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PRESENTLY SERVING IN THE
POST OF LOWER DIVISION CLERK, R/O HOUSE
NO. 2243, BEHIND DURGA MANDIR, SHARDA
CHOWK, NAGPUR ROAD, JABPLUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....PETITIONER
(SHRI S.K. RAO- SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR
TIWARI- ADVOCAT )

AND
1.      MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.P. STATE
        AGRO    INDUSTRIES   DEVELOPMENT
        CORPORATION LIMITED, REGISTERED
        OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR, PANCHANAN
        BUILDING, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HR), M.P.
        STATE       AGRO       INDUSTRIES
        DEVELOPMENT          CORPORATION
        LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3RD
        FLOOR, PANCHANAN BUILDING, BHOPAL
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.      MANAGER (HRD), M.P. STATE AGRO
        INDUSTRIES           DEVELOPMENT
        CORPORATION LIMITED, REGISTERED
        OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR, PANCHANAN
        BUILDING, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ABHIJEET AWASTHI- ADVOCATE)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   2                    W.P. No. 23623/2023


      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

following:

                                      ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against orders dated 21.10.2022 and 31.05.2023 passed by Managing Director, M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited and Manager (HRD), M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited respectively.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband late Shri Rajesh Das was in employment who died in harness. After the death of her husband Shri Rajesh Das, the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment by order dated 26.03.2015. There was no condition in the appointment order that the petitioner is required to pass CPCT Examination. However, it appears that since passing of CPCT Examination is necessary, therefore, by order dated 08.11.2016, the petitioner was directed to pass CPCT Examination. Thereafter by orders dated 19.01.2017, 08.02.2019, 28.05.2019, 21.10.2019, 28.02.2020, 01.10.2020, 22.02.2021, 25.08.2021 and 21.10.2022, opportunities were given to the petitioner to clear CPCT Examination. Thereafter by order dated 31.05.2023, a last opportunity was given to the petitioner to clear CPCT Examination with a specific rider that otherwise her services would be terminated. It is an admitted position that the petitioner could not clear CPCT Examination. Therefore, this petition has been filed for quashment of orders dated 21.10.2022 and 31.05.2023. The counsel for petitioner has also relied upon the order passed by this Court in the cases of Virat Dev Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others, decided on 31st August, 2023 in W.P. No.16770 of 2022 and Smt. Pratibha Upadhyay

Vs. State of M.P. and Others, decided on 21st of September, 2023 in W.P. No. 18444 of 2022.

3. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for State. It is submitted that in spite of multiple opportunities granted to the petitioner to pass CPCT Examination, she did not do that. Under these circumstances, the respondents are left with no other option but to terminate the services of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petition has been filed against the order dated 31.05.2023 by which a last opportunity has been granted to pass out CPCT Examination and, therefore, the petition is misconceived and premature.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. It appears that at present there is no order of termination of services.

6. Be that whatever it may be.

7. An apprehension has been expressed by the petitioner that in the light of letter dated 31.05.2023, her services may be terminated. Furthermore, the counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Virat Dev Singh (supra), in which it has been 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 her appointment on any other post for which CPCT Score Card is not required and the petitioner shall positively submit her undertaking / consent for consideration of her case for any other post whether Class-III or Class-IV.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE ashish

Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Date: 2023.11.01 16:29:54 +05'30'