Madhya Pradesh High Court
Romesh Kumar Shrivastava vs Madhya Pradesh Public Health ... on 25 October, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:54009
1 WP-31569-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 25 th OF OCTOBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 31569 of 2024
ROMESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERIN DEPARTMENT AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ayush Gupta - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :
"(i) To issue to writ of certiorari quashing the order dated30.09.2024, (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent asking the petitioner to submit certificate of passing CPCT test.
(ii) To issue the writ of mandamus declare that the petitioner is not required to acquire CPCT qualification and is entitled to continue in service without acquiring such qualification.
(iii) To issue any writ/direction in favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court deemed fit."
It is pointed that a similar question has been decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Abhishek Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others : W.P. No.22499 of 2023 on 06.09.2023 wherein it has been observed as under -
"5- This Court in the case of Virat Dev Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 31.8.2023 in W.P.No.16770/2022, has held that passing of CPCT examination is mandatory. However, it has also been held that since appointment was on compassionate ground, therefore, terminating the services of such employee on the ground of non-passing of CPCT examination would be a bit harsh and, therefore, it has been directed that the respondents may consider the case of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 26-10-2024 4:27:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:54009
2 WP-31569-2024 petitioner for his appointment on a post for which passing of CPCT examination is not compulsory.
6. In the case of Virat Dev Singh (supra), it has been held as under :-
"This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 12.07.2022 passed by Chief Personal Officer, M.P. State Mining Corporation Limited by which petitioner has been directed to produce certificate of CPCT.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that father of petitioner was working on the post of Deputy General Manager in M.P. State Mining Corporation Limited. He died in harness on 10.11.2016. On account of sudden demise of father of petitioner, petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The said prayer was duly accepted and by order dated 02.06.2017 petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Manager (Field). In the said order it was stipulated that petitioner shall be required to submit Computer Diploma and Computer Typing Proficiency Test from the institute recognised by State of Madhya Pradesh within a period of 3 years. Although petitioner has obtained PGDCA from Mansarovar Global University but could not obtain CPCT certificate. It is submitted that PGDCA also includes Hindi/English typing which is evident from marksheet of PGDCA. It is submitted that by order dated 12.07.2022 petitioner has been directed to submit certificate of passing of CPCT from a institute recognised by State of Madhya Pradesh because CPCT is essential eligible condition for appointment to the post of Junior Manager (Field). Since respondents are insisting upon production of CPCT certificate, therefore, in absence thereof, appointment of petitioner is liable to be terminated. Indore Bench of this Court in the case of Kumari Resham Meghwal Vs. State of M.P. and another by order dated 03.11.2020 in W.P. No.9524/2020 had held that termination of services of compassionate appointee on the ground of non-holding the qualification as CPCT is bad. Accordingly, it is submitted that case of petitioner is squarely covered by order passed by a writ Court in the case of Kumari Resham Meghwal (supra) which was affirmed by Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.109/2021.
3. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents. It is submitted that petitioner is trying to take advantage of rules which are made for ministerial post but petitioner is holding a non-ministerial post, therefore, law laid down in the case of Kumari Resham Meghwal (supra) is not applicable. It is submitted by counsel for respondents that in the appointment order dated 02.06.2017 Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 26-10-2024 4:27:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:54009 3 WP-31569-2024 it was specifically mentioned that appointee has to pass CPCT from a recognized institution within a period of 3 years which can be extended by a further period of one year. Accordingly, by order dated 29.07.2020 petitioner was directed to produce PGDCA mark-sheet as well as CPCT certificate issued by a recognized institute within a period of 7 days. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application on 18.08.2020 for extension of time by one year. Accordingly, by order dated 23.11.2021 a further time of one year was granted i.e. upto 26.06.2022 to produce CPCT certificate and ultimately by impugned order dated 12.07.2022 petitioner was directed to produce CPCT certificate. It is submitted that petitioner is holding a Class-III non-ministerial post. As per Madhya Pradesh Junior Service (Joint Qualifying) Examination Rules, 2013, candidate applying for Group-3 post must have passed Higher Secondary Examination and must have Diploma in Computer Application/Certificate from the recognized University. Proficiency in Hindi Typing on Computer at a speed of 30 words per minute, for Stenographer the candidate must have passed English/Hindi Shorthand Examination at a speed of 100 words per minute from any recognised institution/Council and for Steno-Typist the candidate must have a speed in English/Hindi Shorthand of 80 words per minute as recognised by General Administration Department, from time to time. Thus, it is submitted that even for direct recruitment the minimum qualification as per Rule 10 of Madhya Pradesh Junior Service (Joint Qualifying) Examination Rules, 2013 is Higher Secondary Examination alongwith Diploma in Computer Examination and proficiency in Hindi Typing on Computer at a speed of 30 words per minute. Furthermore, in the appointment order itself it was specifically made clear that petitioner must pass CPCT within a period of 3 years from the date of appointment. Petitioner was given appointment on 02.06.2017 whereas impugned order was passed on 12.07.2022 and extension by one year was also granted to petitioner. However, petitioner could not obtain CPCT and thus he is liable to face consequences. It is further submitted that G.A.D. by circular dated 26.06.2015 had made the score card of CPCT compulsory for appointment on contact/regular basis.
4. Heard learned counsel for parties.
5. Petitioner was granted appointment on compassionate ground by order dated 02.06.2017 and prior thereto passing of CPCT was made compulsory for recruitment to Class-III post. Apart from that, the said fact was also specifically mentioned in appointment order of petitioner. Initially he was granted 3 years to obtain score card Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 26-10-2024 4:27:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:54009 4 WP-31569-2024 of CPCT and later on, at the request of petitioner further extension of one year was granted. By the impugned order, petitioner has been directed to produce CPCT score card. During the course of arguments, it was accepted by counsel for petitioner that although petitioner had made multiple attempts but he could not qualify CPCT.
6. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that if petitioner could not qualify CPCT, then he has to face consequences.
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.
11. With aforesaid observations, petition is finally disposed of".
7. In the present case also the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground. He has been given multiple opportunities to pass CPCT examination but he could not do so. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the circular dated 15.11.1984 for exemption from CPCT examination is Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 26-10-2024 4:27:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:54009 5 WP-31569-2024 misconceived. Furthermore, the petitioner was appointed much subsequent to the circular dated 15.11.1984. Initially, the Hindi typing test was being conducted by VYAPAM and with passage of time CPCT examination is being conducted to test the efficiency. In the light of various circulars which have already been considered by this Court in the case of Virat Dev Singh (supra), it is held that the petitioner cannot be exempted from passing CPCT examination. However, it is made clear that since the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground and termination of his service on the ground of non-passing of CPCT examination would be bit harsh, therefore, it is directed that in case if petitioner fails to produce the score card of CPCT then his case may be considered for appointment on class III or class IV post for which passing of CPCT examination is not compulsory. Accordingly, it is directed that in case if the petitioner submits his consent for consideration of his case for his appointment on any other class III or class IV post for which passing of CPCT examination is not necessary then respondents shall consider his claim for the said post.
8. In case if the petitioner fails to submit his consent within a period of 45 days from today then the aforesaid protection shall also automatically come to end and the natural consequence of non- passing of CPCT examination shall follow.
9. With aforesaid observation, the petition is finally disposed of."
Counsel appearing on behalf of the State does not dispute the aforesaid proposition.
In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by this Court in the case of Abhishek Dubey (supra) shall be applicable to the present case mutatis mutandis and accordingly the present writ petition is disposed off finally. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE L.Raj Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 26-10-2024 4:27:10 PM