Pradeep Mittal, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 22043 of 2022 whereby the petition filed by the appellant/writ petition has been dismissed.

2. It is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that respondent No. 4 was appointed as Assistant Grade-III vide order dated 05.07.2014 in the respondent department and, in terms of Condition No. 11, respondent No. 4 was required to obtain a typing certificate from a recognized institution. However, the said certificate has not been obtained by him. Therefore, he is not fulfilling the qualification required to hold the post in question.

3. The appellant/writ petitioner submitted a representation to the authorities highlighting the issue; however, no action has been taken on the said representation. A similar representation was also submitted by the M.P. Employee Association on 25.05.2022, but the same has not been acted upon. Accordingly, he filed the aforesaid writ petition which was dismissed. Hence this appeal raising the following grounds.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Learned Single Judge erred both in law and on facts in holding that respondent No. 4 had qualified the CPCT examination within the extended period. The CPCT certificate clearly shows that respondent No. 4 was declared "Non-qualified" in Section-1 (Computer Proficiency) and was qualified only in Hindi Typing. As per the CPCT guidelines, a candidate is required to qualify both the Computer Proficiency section and the prescribed typing test. Therefore, respondent No. 4 cannot be treated as having passed the CPCT examination.

5. It is further submitted that the CPCT certificate itself provides that the scorecard remains valid only if the candidate qualifies both the Computer Proficiency Test and the requisite typing skill. Hence, mere qualification in Hindi Typing does not satisfy the mandatory eligibility condition prescribed for the post.

6. It is also contended that respondent No. 4 failed to comply with Condition No. 11 of the appointment order, which required him to pass the Hindi Typing Examination within one year. Although the requirement was later substituted with CPCT and the time period was extended up to 10.07.2018, respondent No. 4 neither appeared within the stipulated period nor qualified the examination. The CPCT certificate itself records the date of result as 04.08.2018, which is beyond the extended period.

7. Accordingly, since respondent No. 4 did not fulfill the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant Grade-III, his continuance in the said public office is illegal and without authority of law. The findings recorded by the Learned Single Judge are therefore contrary to the documentary evidence on record, particularly the CPCT certificate (Annexure A/5), which on its face disqualifies respondent No. 4 from holding the post in question.

8. The Respondent No. 4 supports the impugned order by submitting that, as per the prevailing procedure, an employee is initially granted two years' time to obtain the CPCT certificate, which may further be extended by one additional year in special circumstances. Respondent No. 4, vide communication dated 29.11.2017, informed the department that he had appeared twice in the CPCT examination but could not clear the same as his son was suffering from Cerebral Palsy. Upon consideration of his representation, the competent authority granted a further extension of one year for obtaining the CPCT certificate vide order dated 23.06.2018. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 appeared in the CPCT examination, cleared the same on 04.08.2018, and duly intimated the department accordingly.

9. The writ court, while dismissing the petition, held that respondent No. 4 had obtained the CPCT certificate within the extended period granted by the competent authority and, therefore, fulfilled the requisite qualification prescribed for the post. Consequently, the allegations raised by the appellant/writ petitioner regarding the ineligibility of respondent No. 4 were found to be without substance.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in the present appeal. The material on record demonstrates that respondent No. 4 was granted extension of time by the competent authority to obtain the CPCT certificate on account of special circumstances, namely the serious medical condition of his son suffering from Cerebral Palsy. Pursuant thereto, respondent No. 4 obtained the CPCT certificate and duly intimated the department.

11. The employer is satisfied with the CPCT certificate; therefore, the petitioner has no right to challenge its validity. The employer does not require proficiency in the English language and is satisfied with proficiency in Hindi. Accordingly, the certificate is valid for the Hindi language requirement.

12. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that Respondent No. 4 fulfilled the requisite qualification within the extended period granted by the competent authority. The findings recorded are based on the documents available on record and do not suffer from any legal or factual error.

13. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present appeal. The same is hereby dismissed and the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 22043 of 2022 is affirmed. No order as to costs.