--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: Hon. Mr. S. C. Sharma, J WRIT PETITION NO. 935 / 2010 (s) Sandeep S/o Madanmohan Saxena Vs. State of MP & Others WRIT PETITION NO. 936 / 2010 (s) Shailendra S/o Purushottam Saxena Vs. State of MP & Others WRIT PETITION NO. 937 / 2010 (s) Shrikant S/o Govindram Kushwaha Vs. State of MP & Others A N D WRIT PETITION NO. 938 / 2010 (s) Manish S/o Brajeshchandra Tiwari Vs. State of MP & Others * * * * * [ O R D E R ] ( 01/12/2010) Regard being had to the similarity in the controversy involved in the present bunch of cases they were heard analogously together and by a common order all the writ petitions are being disposed of by this court. Facts of WP NO. --- 2 --- 935 / 2010 (s) are stated as under : The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by Annexure P-1, by which the Deputy Commissioner, Land Records has directed all the Collectors of the State of Madhya Pradesh to scrutinize the certificates, in respect of qualifications of the candidates, who had been declared successful in the Patwari examination 2008. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he has obtained a certificate of Diploma in Computer Application from Dr.C.V.Raman University, Bilaspur and the same is recognized and affiliated by University Grant Commission. The petitioner's grievance is that the respondents are not accepting the certificate of Diploma in Computer Application, issued by Dr. C.V.Raman University, Bilaspur, for the reasons best known to them. 3. A reply has been filed in the matter and the respondents in their reply have stated that the matter stands concluded by a judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Ajay Awasthi and another Vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P.No.8802/2009 decided on 5.10.2009. The contention of the respondent-State is that the certificate issued by the University in question should have been issued by the University itself with the seal and signature of the Competent Authority. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 5. In the present case, the petitioners have obtained Diploma in Computer Application in the year 2007-2008 from the Dr. C.V.Raman University, Bilaspur. As per the document enclosed along with the writ petition, it is evident that the University is --- 3 --- affiliated with the University Grants Commission and there is no denial in the return submitted by the State Government. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Awasthi and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others in paragraph 31, 32 and 33 has held as under :- “31. Be it noted, many of the candidates had produced certificates from the institutes run under the Maharishi Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1995 which is an Act to establish and incorporate a University in the State of Madhya Pradesh and to provide for education and prosecution of research in Vedic learnings and practice and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The University as has been defined under the Act means the Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic University established under this Act. Section 4 of the Act deals with powers of the University. Sub-section 4(1) (a) of Section 4 read as under: “4(i)(a) grant, subject to such conditions as the University may determine, Diplomas or certificates and confer degrees or other academic distinctions on the basis of examination, evaluation or any other method of testing on persons and withdraw any such diplomas, certificates, degrees or other academic distinctions for good and sufficient cause.” Section 2(1) defines institution. It reads as under: “Institution” means an academic institution, not being a college maintained by the University”. Section 29(o) defines 'recognized institution' which is as under: “Recognized institution” means an institution of higher learning recognized by the University.” 32. Thus, it is evincible that Section 4 of the Act deals with powers of the University. Sub-section (vi) empowers the University to establish and maintain --- 4 --- colleges, institutions and halls. The institutions are established by the University but the diplomas are eventually conferred by the University itself. What is required by the letter-circular is to produce diplomas or certificates with the seal of the University and with the signature of the competent authority of the University. Hence, there is no change in the terms incorporated in the advertisement. It does not remotely transgress the stipulations in the Rule. What the letter circular postulates is only the method how the certificate is to be produced as per law. It is in accord with the Rule and the advertisement. Therefore, we are unable to accept the spacious submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the same transgresses the Rule or the advertisement. 33. Consequently, we perceive no merit in the wit petitions and accordingly, they are dismissed without any order as to costs.” The respondents relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court have not stated that the certificate is a forged certificate or the petitioners have not qualified the examination in question from a recognized University and therefore, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated January 15, 2010 is hereby quashed. However, the respondent-State shall be at liberty to verify the certificate issued by the respondent-University, in accordance with law. Needless to mention that if such an examination of verifying the certificate issued by the University is undertaken by the State Government, the petitioners shall also be granted an opportunity of hearing in the matter before passing any final order. In the present case a ground has also been taken by the State Government that the cut off date fixed under the --- 5 --- advertisement was 7/7/08 and the petitioner has obtained necessary qualification after the cut off date. It is needless to mention that the cut off date was extended later on by the Commissioner of Land Records and the same was extended upto 30th November 2009. The petitioner has certainly obtained a certificate prior to the extended cut off date and therefore he is entitled for all consequential benefits as stated aforesaid. The writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid. No order as to costs. C.C. as per rules. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR