Abdul Javed Khan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sanjay Yadav, J.—Heard on admission.

Petitioners, Assistant Grade-II/III in the department of Public Health and Family Welfare Department seeks direction to the respondents to release regular increment immediately on their completion of one year of service, by holding that the condition contained in their appointment letter regarding passing of typing examination as invalid.

Evident it is from the appointment letter (collectively marked as Annexure P/1) that it was a condition mandatory when appointment was offered that each appointee on their appointment as Lower Division Clerk will have to pass typing examination within one year of appointment, failing which their services would be terminated. Petitioners accepted these terms and conditions. And, though they did not pass the typing examination within stipulated time but on their passing of typing examination in later years, instead of terminating their services, they were granted increment from the date when they passed the typing examination.

On the strength of decision rendered in Zahid Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh: Writ Petition No. 13637/2008(s) decided on 19.04.2010, Sevakram Sarankar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh: Writ Petition No. 17500/2003 decided on 13.07.2004, T.C. Mahroliya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh: Writ Petition No. 9947/2008(s) decided on 01.09.2008 & Mohd. Akram Mansoori vs. State of Madhya Pradesh: Writ Petition No. 10187/2009(s) decided on 13.10.2010 petitioners seek direction to the respondents that they be granted the benefit of increment immediately on their completion of one year of service and not from the date when they passed the typing examination.

Apparent it is from the appointment letter that it was a condition precedent for continuation in service that the appointee must pass typing examination within one year from the date of appointment failing which their services were liable to be terminated. These conditions having been accepted by the petitioners, it is too late for the petitioners to wriggle themselves out from the conditions duly accepted by them. Merely because the services of the petitioners were not terminated on their not passing typing examination within the stipulated time will not exonerate them from not passing the typing examination.

It is not that the petitioners did not pass the typing examination but typing examinations were passed by them at a later stage. The respondents on passing typing examination by the petitioners have released the regular increment. The action of the respondents cannot be faulted with because it is within the power of the employer to stipulate the conditions of appointment and if accepted by the employee, at a later stage, such employee cannot having taken advantage, to turn around and question such stipulation. It is contended that the service rules does not provide for the stipulations of passing of typing examination. It is also true that it does not exempt a person from passing the typing examination if such is warranted by the employer duly specified in the appointment letter. Petitioners were at liberty not to accept the appointment but having accepted the appointment with terms and conditions stipulated they are estopped by their action as would warrant any interference in the petition.

At this stage, learned counsel for the parties submits that the decision in State of M.P. vs. Smt. Sushma Surana: 2005(II) MPWN SN 116 has been referred to the Full Bench, in that case, in the event if the Full Bench answers the issue in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners in the present petition would be governed by such decision.

For the present, since the petitioners fail to establish their legal right for grant of regular increment immediately on their completion of one year of service, no relief can be granted.

Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.