Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hanish Budhani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27493
1 WP-20322-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 25 th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 20322 of 2025
HANISH BUDHANI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Shikha Sharma - Government Advocate for the respondent - State.
ORDER
By way of this petition, the order Annexure P-5 whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated, has been challenged. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner who was appointed on compassionate ground on the post of Assistant Grade - II has been terminated on the ground that despite lapse of around 9 years from the date of appointment the petitioner has failed to acquire the qualification of CPCT, which was mentioned as a condition in the appointment order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Virat Dev Singh vs. State of M.P. and others passed in W.P. No.16770/2022 so also in the case of Smt. Kavita Joshi vs. State of M.P. and others passed in W.P. No.19269/2025.
3. In the case of Virat Dev Singh (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench has held as under:-
"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 of CPCT and later Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 26-06-2025 10:29:13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27493 2 WP-20322-2025 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."
4. In the case of Kavita Joshi (supra) , this Court has held as under :-
"5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, order dated 16.5.2025 is quashed. Matter is remanded back to the authority for reconsideration of the case. If any other Class IV vacant position is available then petitioner may be adjusted against the said position and if said position is not available in the department then case of the petitioner be considered by Collector for appointment to Class IV post in any other department. Decision be taken within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today." 5 . Considering the aforesaid, the impugned order Annexure P-5 dated 26.05.2025 is quashed and petitioner shall be taken back in service subject to the condition that the petitioner submits an undertaking before the concerned authority Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 26-06-2025 10:29:13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27493 3 WP-20322-2025 in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Virat Deo Singh (supra) within a period of 10 days from today.
6. In the event, such an undertaking is filed the petitioner shall be taken back in service and thereafter, if any other Class - IV vacant post is available, then the petitioner shall be adjusted against the said vacant post and if it is not available in the department, then the case may be considered by the Collector for appointment any other vacant Class IV post in other Department in the District. The respondent would be at liberty to terminate the services only if no vacant Class IV post is vacant either in the department of the petitioner or any other department in the District.
7. With the aforesaid direction, petition stands disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE rj Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 26-06-2025 10:29:13