Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

III. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit."

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was granted appointment on compassionate ground with a rider that she will have to obtain computer diploma and CPCT certificate within a period of 3 years from the date of appointment. The petitioner was given appointment on compassionate ground by order dated 17.06.2019. Although, the petitioner cleared her Computer Diploma Examination in the month of November, 2020 but she could not clear her CPCT Exam within a period of 3 years and accordingly by order dated 24.11.2022 the probation period of the petitioner was extended by a further period of 1 year i.e. 17.06.2023. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that because of Covid-19 Pandemic, the examination for CPCT was not conducted and, therefore, she could not clear the CPCT Examination. Thus, she has made a representation to the respondents on 09.06.2023 that she had already cleared Computer Diploma.

3. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the petitioner did not disclose that the petitioner had already participated in CPCT Examination but she could not succeed. But on the contrary, he was all the time was trying to pursue this Court by submitting that no CPCT examination has conducted on account of Covid-19 Pandemic. Accordingly, after conclusion of arguments by the petitioner, this Court directed the counsel for the petitioner to read out paragraph 5.4 of the writ petition. After reading out the said paragraph, the counsel for the petitioner admitted that in fact the petitioner had appeared in CPCT Examination but could not succeed. Thus, it is clear that the counsel for the petitioner had made every attempt to mislead this Court by submitting that no examination of CPCT was conducted by the department due to Covid-19 Pandemic, therefore, the petitioner could not clear the CPCT Examination.

4. The next question for consideration is as to whether this conduct of the counsel for the petitioner in not disclosing the correct facts and in making the misleading submissions that no examination of CPCT was conducted due to Covid-19 Pandemic can be said to be bonafide or it is a suppression of material fact.

5. In the representation Annexure-P/4, the petitioner has not claimed that no examination of CPCT was ever conducted by the concerning department.

6. It is really surprising that even in the representation dated 09.06.2023, the petitioner did not disclose that she had appeared in CPCT Examination but could not succeed. The petitioner has also filed the Score Card of Computer Proficiency Certification Test (CPCT) as Annexure-P/3 and it is clear that she could not qualify even in Computer Proficiency and Typing Speed of English Typing and Hindi Typing. Thus, the attempt made by the counsel for the petitioner that the examination of CPCT was not conducted is contrary to the pleadings as well as the documents.

14. Apart from the misrepresentation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has no merits in the case. Although, the petitioner was granted appointment on compassionate ground but it was a conditional order and petitioner was required to obtain Computer Diploma as well as to pass Computer Proficiency Certification Test (CPCT). Although, the petitioner successfully obtained Computer Diploma in the year 2020 itself but could not clear Computer Proficiency Certification Test (CPCT). The respondents had also extended the period of probation by 1 year in order to facilitate the petitioner to clear the CPCT, however, the petitioner could not succeed.