[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Rajak vs Mp Madhya Kshetra Vidhyut Vitran Co Ltd. on 8 December, 2025
1 W.P.No.5483/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
WRIT PETITION No. 5483 of 2022
AMIT RAJAK
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDHYUT VITRAN
COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri J.K.Sharma- Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Satyapal Singh Solanki,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anil Sharma- Advocate for the respondents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESERVED ON: 28/11/2025
ORDER PASSED ON: 08/12/2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R
Petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging the order dated 8/4/2021 (Annexure P/1), whereby, the
respondent/Company has declined his request for compassionate
appointment on the ground that petitioner has failed to acquire CPCT
qualification. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to respondents to
grant him compassionate appointment as per Policy of 2016.
2. Facts necessary for decision of this case are that petitioner's father
Late Shri Rambablu Rajak was working as Lineman in the Madhya Pradesh
Madhya Kshetra Vidhyut Vitran Company Ltd. (for short "Company"). He
expired on 27/4/2016 in an accident while performing his duty. After his
death, petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate
appointment.
3. At the time of death of petitioner's father as also on the date of
applying for compassionate appointment, the Policy as circulated vide order
dated 13/4/2016 (Annexure P/3) was prevailing. Clause 4.1 of the Policy
provides for the posts on which the compassionate appointment can be
given. Further Clause 5.1 of the Policy provides for the qualification
required for appointment on the posts. For the present case, we are
concerned with the qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant
Revenue Officer (Equivalent to Office Assistant Grade III). The
qualification as prescribed for said post in the policy itself is as under:-
सहहायक रहाजसस्व अधधिकहाररी (समकक ककसण महानयतहा पहापत वस्वशस्ववस्वदयहालय सश्रे
कहायहार्यालय सहहायक शश्रेणण-3) दवस्वतणय शश्रेणण मम सनहातक कश्रे सहाथ ययजणसण
स्वश्रेतनमहान 5200-20200 सश्रे महानयतहा पहापत सवंसथहाननों सश्रे कमपययटर
एस्ववं गश्रेड-पश्रे-2500/- डडपलप्लोमहा अथस्वहा डण.ओ.ई.ए.सण.सण. सश्रे
डडपलप्लोमहा कश्रे समकक कमपययटर पररीकहा उतणणर्या
अभयण शहासककीय पपॉलरीटश्रेननक महहावस्वदयहालय
सश्रे गपॉडनर्या ऑकफिस ममैनश्रेजमम ट कप्लोसर्या उतणणर्या
आयय 18 स्वरर्या सश्रे 30 स्वरर्या
4. The petitioner's case was considered by the Company. He was found
qualified and suitable for appointment on the post of Security Guard.
However, the said post was not available. Accordingly, vide letter dated
25/11/2016 (Annexure P/4), petitioner was granted two options- firstly, to
opt for monetary benefits as provided in Clause 8.1 of the Policy or to
acquire qualification for the post of Assistant Revenue Officer within a
period of three years. The petitioner was asked to give his consent for either
of the two options. It is not in dispute that the petitioner gave his consent for
second option i.e. appointment on the post of Assistant Revenue Officer
after acquiring requisite qualification within a period of three years.
Accordingly, the respondent/Company vide communication dated
31/12/2016 (Annexure P/5) accepted petitioner's consent and accordingly,
executed the following undertaking:-
" vfHkopu
;g fd Jh vfer jtd firk Lo0 Jh jkeckcw jtd] uhfr 2013
¼ la'kksf/kr ) ds rgr vuqdaik fu;qfDr iznku fd, tkus gsrq izkIr vkosnu ds
voyksdu i'pkr vkosnd dks muds }kjk izLrqr fodYi rFkk uhfr ds
izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj lgk;d jktLo vf/kdkjh ds in ij vuqdaik fu;qfDr ds
fy, daiu }kjk fu/kkZfjr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk fdlh ekU;rk izkIr fo'ofo|ky;
ls f}rh; Js.k esa Lukrd ds lkFk ;w-th-lh- ds led{k dEI;wVj ijh{kk
mRrh.kZ vFkok 'kkldh; ikWyhVsfDud egkfo|ky; ls ekWMZu vkWfQl eSustesaV
dklZ iw.kZ djus gsrq vf/kdre rhu o"kZ dk le; fn;k tkrk gSA
mDr ifjizs{; esa ,rn }kjk daiuh ;g vfHkopu ¼ undertaking ½ nsrh gS]
fd vkosnd }kjk mijksDr le;kof/k esa mDr in gsrq fu/kkZfjr 'kS{kf.kd
vgZrk izkIr dj yh in ij fu;qfDr iznku dh tk;sxhA"
5. It is thus, apparent that the respondent/Company furnished an
undertaking that if the petitioner acquires qualification, as mentioned
therein, for appointment on the post of Assistant Revenue Officer, he would
be granted compassionate appointment on the said post. Acting upon the
undertaking given by the Company, the petitioner acquired requisite
qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Revenue Officer.
However, in the meantime, there was some change in the requisite
qualification for the post of Assistant Revenue Officer. Vide circular dated
29/6/2018, the respondent/Company prescribed certain additional
qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Revenue Officer. For
the purposes of this case, it is sufficient to mention that the additional
qualification of CPCT was added.
6. In view of change in the requisite qualification, the respondent/
Company vide letter dated 14/8/2018 (Annexure P/7) informed the
petitioner about the new qualification and asked him to submit the
qualifications, including CPCT, within the prescribed period. The petitioner
vide his letter dated 27/11/2019 (Annexure P/8) informed the
respondent/Company that he has acquired the qualification as per the
undertaking furnished by it and thus, requested for grant of compassionate
appointment based upon the said qualification.
7. The respondent/Company however insisted for acquisition of CPCT
qualification. The petitioner, therefore, requested the Company for grant of
additional time to enable him to acquire CPCT qualification vide letter
dated 12/3/2019. Accordingly vide letter dated 14/10/2019, the respondent/
Company extended time for a period of one year w.e.f. 26/4/2019.
8. It appears that petitioner could not acquire the CPCT qualification
and accordingly, vide letter dated 8/4/2021, his request for grant of
compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground of his failure to
obtain CPCT qualification. The petitioner is thus before this Court
challenging the aforesaid communication.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned action
of the respondents on the ground that petitioner has already been found
eligible for compassionate appointment under the Policy of 2016. On the
undertaking given by the respondent/Company, the petitioner has acquired
the requisite qualification. Thus, subsequent change in qualification, would
not be applicable in the case of petitioner. In support of his submission, he
placed reliance upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of P.
Mahendran & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 405. He
also submitted that once the Company has promised to appoint the
petitioner on his acquiring additional qualification, it is bound by the
undertaking and subsequently cannot ask for acquiring additional
qualification. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that the
petitioner has changed his position relying upon the undertaking given by
the Company, and therefore, the Company is estopped from changing its
stand on the principle of "Promissory Estoppel". He thus, prayed for setting
aside of the impugned communication and for direction to the Company to
grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
10. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents supported the
impugned action of the respondents and submitted that merely because the
petitioner was offered appointment on the post of Assistant Revenue
Officer, no right is accrued in favour of petitioner so long as he is not
appointed on the post. It is his submission that the compassionate
appointment is not a right of a candidate rather it is only a compassion being
shown to him and, therefore, he cannot claim relaxation in the matter of
qualification. He also submitted that for appointment on compassionate
ground, a candidate is required to possess the requisite educational
qualification prescribed for the post. Thus, the additional qualification of
CPCT is necessary for appointment on the post in question. The learned
counsel further submitted that no exemption can be granted to a candidate in
the matter of educational qualification. He thus, submitted that the action of
respondents in rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate
appointment on the ground of his failure to acquire CPCT qualification is
legal and valid and does not warrant any interference of this Court.
11. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
12. Facts which are not in dispute in this case are that the petitioner was
found suitable for appointment o the post of Assistant Revenue Officer, and
therefore, he was given an offer by the Company to acquire necessary
qualification within three years. Vide letter dated 25/11/2016, this offer of
the Company was accepted by the petitioner. Acting upon the acceptance of
the offer, the respondent/Company executed an undertaking in favour of
petitioner. This, undertaking is relevant inasmuch as by way of this
undertaking the Company has promised the petitioner to give him
appointment on the post of Assistant Revenue Officer if he acquires the
requisite qualification stipulated in undertaking itself, within the stipulated
period.
13. It is thus seen that the Company made an offer to the petitioner to
acquire qualification within three years. The petitioner accepted the offer.
Consequently, the Company promised to give appointment if the petitioner
acquires the qualification within three years. Thus, the offer given by
Company when accepted by the petitioner, became a concluded contract
between the Company and the petitioner and therefore, both are bound by
the terms. The Company cannot be allowed to resile from its promise based
upon subsequent event.
14. The learned counsel for the Company argued that the petitioner
himself accepted the change in qualification and asked for additional time to
acquire CPCT qualification also. Therefore, he is now stopped from asking
for appointment without CPCT qualification. In this regard, it is seen that
the petitioner had initially requested for appointment without CPCT vide his
letter, dated 27/11/2019. However, when the Company insisted for CPCT,
the petitioner asked for additional time. Thus, it is not a case were the
petitioner unequivocally and unconditionally accepted the changed
condition. It be noted here that the petitioner is not having the same
bargaining power vis-a-vis the Company and, therefore, if he has asked for
additional time, upon Company's insisting for CPCT, that cannot be
accepted to be waiver on his part.
15. The respondent/Company prescribed certain additional qualification
for appointment on the post of Assistant Revenue Officer vide Circular
dated 29/6/2018 (Annexure R/1). From the said circular, it is seen that the
additional qualification has been prescribed for direct recruitment on the
post of Assistant Revenue Officer for Batch-2018. In other words, the
additional qualification is prescribed for direct recruitment on the post.
However, there is no corresponding change in the Policy for grant of
compassionate appointment. From the order dated 13/4/2016 (Annexure
P/3), it is seen that qualification is prescribed separately for compassionate
appointment on the post in question. Therefor, even when there is some
change in qualification for direct recruitment, without there being
corresponding change in the compassionate appointment policy, the
petitioner would be governed by policy and not by subsequent order. Thus,
the action of the Company in asking the petitioner to acquire CPCT
qualification which is prescribed in the compassionate appointment policy,
is found to be unsustainable.
16. The stand of the Company is not acceptable also in view of the law
laid down by Apex Court in the case of P. Mahendran (supra). The Court
has held that any amendment in recruitment rules during ongoing selection
process would not vitiate the process completed on the basis of unamended
rules. The Court held in para 5 as under:
"5.It is well settled rule of construction that every statute or
statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by
necessary implication made to have retrospective effect.
Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing
the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to
be prospective. If a rule is expressed in language which is
fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be
construed as prospective only. In the absence of any express
provision or necessary intendment the rule cannot be given
retrospective effect except in matter of procedure. The
amending Rules of 1987 do not contain any express
provision giving the amendment retrospective effect nor
there is anything therein showing the necessary intendment
for enforcing the rule with retrospective effect. Since the
amending Rules were not retrospective, it could not
adversely affect the right of those candidates who were
qualified for selection and appointment on the date they
applied for the post, moreover as the process of selection
had already commenced when the amending Rules came
into force, the amended Rules could not affect the existing
rights of those candidates who were being considered for
selection as they possessed the requisite qualifications
prescribed by the Rules before its amendment moreover
construction of amending Rules should be made in a
reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary hardship to those
who have no control over the subject matter."
17. Applying the aforesaid legal principle in the present case, it is seen
that the petitioner was already found suitable and eligible for appointment
on the post. But for his qualification, he would have been appointed in the
year 2016 itself. Therefore, subsequent change in educational qualification
would not have disqualified him.
18. In view of discussion made above, the action of the respondents in
rejecting petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment on the post of
Assistant Revenue Officer on the ground of his failure to acquire CPCT
qualification is found to be unsustainable in law and is accordingly set
aside. The respondents are directed to process the petitioner's case for
compassionate appointment in view of undertaking furnished by the
Company vide letter dated 31/12/2016. Let needful be done within a period
of 60 days from the date of communication of certified copy of this order.
19. Petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
jps/-
