Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 36973
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Anand Pathak, B. P. Sharma, JJ
RP 1447/2026 JABALPUR - M
REVIEW PETITION No. 1447 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sanjay Agrawal, Aditya Dubey, Nirja Agarwal
For the Respondents: Abhijeet Awasthi
The court allowed a review petition to restore a dismissed writ appeal, emphasizing substantial justice and parity with coordinate bench decisions, particularly in the context of a compassionate appointee with a satisfactory service record.
Headnote:(A) Review Petition - Recall of Order - Parity with coordinate bench decisions - Where a petitioner seeks parity based on previous judgments of a coordinate bench not previously placed on record, and considering the nature of compassionate appointment, the court may allow the review to ensure substantial justice. (Para 4, 7)
(B) Compassionate Appointment - Qualification Requirements - Failure to qualify mandatory examination (CPCT) - While the fault may lie with the employee, the court may exercise discretion to restore a matter for hearing based on the spirit of compassionate appointment and a satisfactory service record. (Para 2, 3, 5, 6)
Issues: Whether the review petition should be allowed to restore the writ appeal based on parity with other cases and the nature of compassionate appointment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding the petitioner's employment as a compassionate appointee and the reason for removal due to failure to qualify the cpct examination. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for review based on parity with coordinate bench decisions and the social context of compassionate appointment. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. restoration of the writ appeal in the interest of substantial justice and the spirit of compassionate appointment. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
Instant review petition is preferred by petitioner seeking review/recall of order dated 06-07-2026 passed in WA No. 2195/2025 whereby the writ appeal preferred by the present review petitioner got dismissed being devoid of merit.
2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for review petitioner that he is a compassionate appointee and is a degree holder in engineering B.E(Computer Science) and was working as Assistant Grade-III since 21-07-2016. He was removed from the post of Assistant Grade-III on the pretext that he did not qualify CPCT Examination within four years of his appointment.
3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for review petitioner that since he was bachelor in Engineering therefore, harboured a notion, that he is not required to qualify CPCT Examination because contents of CPCT Examination are lighter in terms of syllabus/curriculum vis-a-vis B.E (Computer Science). However, when he was informed through notice in November, 2024 then, immediately thereafter, he appeared in the examination, which was held immediately after November, 2024 and got qualified in July, 2025.Therefore, he complied with the directions as given by the authorities. However, he overlooked the mandatory qualification and nobody pointed out during that period.
4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner further refers to order dated 09-07-2022 passed in WA No. 109/2021( Mahatma Gandhi Medical College Chief Executive Officer and Dean M.G.M Medical College, Indore and Ors. vs. Resham Meghal ) as well as order dated 20-01-2025 passed in bunch of writ appeals, in which Writ Appeal No. 220/2023 ( Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd and Ors vs. Sanjay ) was the lead case, the Division Bench of this Court in paragraphs-12 and 13 held in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the Writ Appeals preferred by persons like present petitioner. Those orders were not placed on record at the time of discussion. The petitioner seeks parity.
5. Learned counsel for the review petitioner fairly submits that although fault lies with petitioner but, in the interest of justice, looking to the fact that he was a compassionate appointee and worked in the department for 9 years and is the sole source of bread earner in the family, case be considered accordingly.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contentions and prayed for dismissal of review petition. However, on query, counsel for respondent fairly submits that he was an engineering graduate and worked for 9 years satisfactorily without any adverse remarks/complaints.
7. Considering the submissions and peculiar facts situation, purely in the interest of justice, this review petition is allowed so that substantial justice may not be overlooked and the petitioner may be given an opportunity on the strength of different orders passed by the co-ordinate bench as well as facts which support the cause of very concept of compassionate appointment.
8. Resultantly, the review petition is allowed and order dated 06-07-2026 passed in WA No. 2195/25 is hereby recalled. Office is directed to restore WA No. 2195/25 to its original number and place this matter for hearing on 12-08-2026.
9. A copy of this order be kept in the file of WA No. 2195/25.
