Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.