Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmesh Bansiwal vs Managing Director on 7 April, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16891
1 WP-7749-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 7 th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 7749 of 2020
DHARMESH BANSIWAL
Versus
MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Deepak Sakle - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri H. K. Upadhyaya - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 12.02.2020 passed by respondent no. 2, whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated owing to non-fulfillment of qualification as required in the appointment order.
2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment on 8.9.2016 on account of unfortunate death of his father Late Shri Hiralal Ji Bansiwal. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III and in the appointment order of the petitioner there was a condition that the petitioner shall complete Computer Diploma for Typing Proficiency Test Certificate within three years and there was also a clause that the period of three years may be extended by the appointing authority for one more year. The petitioner made several attempts to obtain CPCT certificate but he could not succeed. The petitioner has competed his Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 08-04-2025 11:23:23 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16891 2 WP-7749-2020 B. Com Degree in the year 2011 and in this graduation degree, there was Semester System having Computer Management as one of the subject along with other subjects and therefore, the petitioner has no difficulty in computer operation as required in the respondents office. The respondent no. 2 on 25.1.2020 wrote to the petitioner and asked for details of the Computer Diploma Programme Certificate whether he has qualified or not. In turn, the petitioner replied that the result is awaited but the respondents authorities without waiting the result of CPCT examination, passed the impugned order removing the petitioner from services.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that it is compassionate appointment granted to the petitioner. If the petitioner could not qualify and obtain CPCT Certificate within the time framed as granted by the authorities, then his case ought to have been considered by the authorities for appointment on some lower post, for which, requirement of CPCT certificate is not necessary. He submits that in similar circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Virat Dev Singh vs. State of M.P. and others in WP No.16770/2022 decided on 31.8.2023 has quashed the impugned order and the case of the petitioner is also similar to that of Virat Dev Singh and under these circumstances, the authorities may be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment to some lower post, for which, the requirement of CPCT Certificate is not needed.
4. The counsel appearing for the respondents submits that as there was a condition mentioned in the appointment order of the petitioner, therefore, he is required to fulfill the same. The petitioner could not get the certificate Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 08-04-2025 11:23:23 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16891 3 WP-7749-2020 within the time framed as granted by the authorities, therefore, the order terminating the services of the petitioner has rightly been passed by the authorities. But he could not distinguish the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.16770/2022 decided on 31.8.2023.
5. Apart from above, 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.
6. Under these circumstances, impugned order dated 12.02.2020 (Annexure-P/1) is quashed and this petition is disposed of on the following terms :-
(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 be reconsidered.
(ii) If no such post in Class-III cadre is available, then the case of petitioner be reconsidered for Class-IV post.
7. The 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.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 08-04-2025 11:23:23NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16891 4 WP-7749-2020
8. 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 12.2.2020 shall follow.
9. With the aforesaid, the petition is finally disposed of.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE JP Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 08-04-2025 11:23:23