Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pavind Sneh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 28382 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
PAVIND SNEH SINGH S/O LATE SHRI VIJAY BAHADUR
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
TERMINATED ASSISTANT GRADE 3 IN DISTRICT AND
SESSION COURT SHAHDOL DISTRICT SHAHDOL R/O
WARD NO. 10, BEHIND CENTRAL SCHOOL, NORTH
KARONDIYA, GOPAD BANAS, KARONDOYA TOLA,
TEHSIL MAJHOLI, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRAKASH UPADHYAY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY LAW AND LEGISLATIVE
AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT VINDHYACHAL BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT
CAMPUS, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
SESSIONS DIVISION SHAHDOL DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MADHYA PRADESH AGENCY FOR PROMOTION
OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY THROUGH ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) STATE IT
CENTRE, 47-A, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL, DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 2/8/2024
4:21:07 PM
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the services of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Grade-III have been terminated, the present petition has been filed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. His father was working as a Civil Judge Class-II Jaisingh Nagar. He died during the course of his employment on 31.05.2012. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground in lieu of his father's services on the post of Assistant Grade-III vide order dated 12.03.2018 in the office of the respondent No.3. There was a condition mentioned in the appointment order to the effect that the petitioner was required to produce passing score card of CPCT(Computer Proficiency Certification Test) from an institute recognized by the State of Madhya Pradesh and one year diploma course in computer application within three years from date of his appointment. Vide letter dated 16.03.2021, the petitioner was asked to produce CPCT certificate along with diploma in computer application. In the reply, it was submitted by the petitioner that he could not qualify CPCT examination held on 11.02.2019 and thereafter no examination could be conducted by the institution due to outbreak of Covid- 19 pandemic. Therefore, he prayed that extension of some time to be granted to him. Vide letter dated 03.02.2022, he informed that he has completed the post graduate diploma in computer application which may be taken on service record. Again a letter dated 18.05.2022 was issued asking him to submit CPCT result, failing which, his services will be terminated. In reply to the same, it was Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 2/8/2024 4:21:07 PM 3 submitted by the petitioner that he could not submit the result as he could not qualify the examination and sought further time to submit the CPCT result. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed terminating the services of the petitioner. The same was put to challenge by filing a writ petition being W.P.No.27226 of 2022. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has cleared CPCT examination and thus, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. Therefore, the present petition has been filed.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner could not pass the CPCT examination in one attempt, however, limited examinations were conducted by the authorities for CPCT examination due to Covid-19 prevailing in the entire country. However, he has completed the CPCT examination and submitted the certificate to the authorities, but with certain delay. Therefore, a sympathetic view should have been taken by the authorities considering the Covid-19 pandemic scenario. Therefore, he has prayed for quashment of the impugned order and reinstatement in service.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. The record indicates that he was granted compassionate appointment in lieu of his father's services with certain terms and conditions. Condition No.4 of the appointment order dated 12.03.2018 which provided to produce CPCT certificate within a period of three years, reads as under:
4- ;g fd] e-iz- 'kklu] lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx] ea=ky; Hksiky ds ifji= Øekad lh&3@12@2013@1@3 fnukad 29-09-2014 dh df.Mdk 6-5 esa fufgr 'krksZa ds v/khu fu;qfDr frfFk ls 3 o"kZ dh le;kof/k esa e-iz- ,stsUlh QkWj izeks'ku vkWQ bUQkjes'ku VsDuksykWth ¼eSi&vkbZ0Vh0½ vFkok e-iz- 'kklu }kjk ekU;rk izkIr vU; ,tsUlh@baLVhV;w'ku ls lh-ih-lh-Vh Ldksj dkMZ ijh{kk rFkk dEI;wVj ,Iyhds'ku esa ,d o"khZ; fMIyksek mRrh.kZ djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA vU;Fkk vkidk fu;qfDr vkns'k rRdky izHkko ls fujLr ekuk tkosxkA
6. The petitioner failed to produce the certificate well within time. Thereafter vide order dated 31.03.2021 further one year's time was granted to him to Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 2/8/2024 4:21:07 PM 4 complete the course and produce the certificate latest by 22.03.2022. The petitioner could not complete the same by the aforesaid time. However, during the intervening period, he obtained a diploma certificate. Thereafter, again a letter was issued by the authorities to produce CPCT certificate. Admittedly, the petitioner could not produce the same to the authorities within time. The impugned order reflects the aforesaid proposition as under:
^^Jh ikfoUn Lusg flag] lgk;d xzsM&3@lgk;d izfrfyfidkj] izfrfyfi vuqHkkx] 'kgMksy dks dk;kZy; vkns'k Ø- 62@nks&15&04@1998] fn- 12-03-2018 dh dafMdk&4 ds vuqlkj lh-ih-lh-Vh- ijh{kk le;kof/k esa mRrh.kZ u djus rFkk dk;kZ- Kkiu Ø- 884] fnukad 31-03-2021 ds }kjk mUgsa fnukad 22-03-2022 rd dk vfrfjDr le; fn;s tkus ds i'pkr Hkh vkt fnukad rd lh-ih-lh-Vh- ijh{kk mRrh.kZ u djus ds dkj.k jftLVªh i`-Ø- ch@696] fnukad 24-02-2016 ds lkFk izkIr e-iz- 'kklu] lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx] ea=ky; Hksiky ds ifji= Øekad lh&3@12@2013@1@3 fnukad 29-09-2014 dh df.Mdk 6-5 esa fufgr 'krksZa ,oa dafMdk 13-1 esa fn, x, funsZ'kksa ds v/khu Jh ikfoUn Lusg flag] lgk;d xzsM&3#lgk;d izfrfyfidkj izfrfyfi vuqHkkx] 'kgMksy dh lsok vkt fnukad 10- 11-2022 dks nksigj i'pkr~ ls lekIr dh tkrh gSA**
7. The aforesaid aspect could not be disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. However, it is argued that some leniency should be shown by the authorities for the reasons that it was a compassionate appointment granted to the petitioner and owing to Covid-19 pandemic, the entire country was under
the lock-down, therefore, the institution could not arrange for examination to be conducted. Initially, the petitioner appeared in CPCT examination, but he could not clear the same. Therefore, some more time should have been granted to the petitioner. The authorities have failed to consider the aforesaid aspect and have terminated the services of the petitioner, but the fact remains that in terms of Clause 4 of the appointment order, the CPCT certificate was required to be produced by the petitioner within a period of three years. Further one year's time was granted vide letter dated 31.03.2021 but he could not produce the certificate. Therefore, the authorities were left with no other option except to Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 2/8/2024 4:21:07 PM 5 follow Clause 4 of the appointment order. For non-fulfillment of the condition by the petitioner as mentioned in the appointment order, the authorities have rightly arrived at a conclusion to terminate the services of the petitioner. The aforesaid decision taken by the authorities could not be interfered in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the same is in accordance with terms and conditions of the appointment order itself. The authorities have not committed any error in terminating the services of the petitioner. Therefore, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
8. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
sj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 2/8/2024
4:21:07 PM