Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neema Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6337
1 WA-643-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 18th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 643 of 2025
NEEMA VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vikas Samadhiay- Advocate for appellant.
Shri Vivek Khedkar,- AAG for respondents.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 06.02.2025 passed in W.P. 2660/2025 whereby the writ petition preferred by petitioner was partly allowed and liberty was given to the petitioner to exercise option whether she wants to work on lower post in which passing of CPCT examination is not required.
It is the submission of learned counsel for appellant that as per circular dated 10.06.1994 (Annexure A-6) after 40 years of age, a compassionate appointee is not required to undergo Hindi Typing Examination. CPCT is the modern version of typing examination and if she has not acquired qualification after appointment within the stipulated period (total 4 years), then she does not disentitle herself to continue in the job. In fact, she completed her CPCT examination in March, 2024.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 18-03-2025 06:56:01 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6337 2 WA-643-2025 Learned counsel for respondents opposed the prayer on the ground that appellant was a compassionate appointee of the year 2015, after death of her husband, on the post of Assistant Grade-III. She was required to qualify CPCT examination within three years as per the circular dated 18.08.2008 (Annexure A/5) and circular dated 29.09.2014 (Annexure A/3) and as per those circulars, she was required to pass the CPCT examination within three years. At best, one year's grace period could have been granted. However, she did not qualify the same within stipulated period and therefore, she is required to undergo option mechanism where she may prefer any other post in which CPCT qualification is not required.
After considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned Writ Court did not err in passing the impugned order because petitioner did not qualify the CPCT examination within the stipulated period. Learned Writ Court has rightly given liberty to the petitioner to exercise option in the ultimate paragraph.
Considering the discussions and the judgements relied upon by the learned Writ Court, it is apposite for the petitioner to exercise her option on those posts where CPCT examination is not required (in Class-III category, if any) and/or may exercise option for Class-IV post.
If any such option is preferred within 15 days from the date of instant order, then respondents shall consider option so forwarded and decide the same in accordance with law and if any Class-III post if available in which requirement of CPCT is not an essential qualification, then respondents are at liberty to consider the same, else, she may be given appointment of Class-IV Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 18-03-2025 06:56:01 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6337 3 WA-643-2025 post, if she is willing to do so.
With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order, the instant writ appeal stands disposed of.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Vishal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 18-03-2025
06:56:01 PM