--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITION NO. 1189 / 2011 MADHURI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF MP & 2 ORS., * * * * * O R D E R ( 25/11/2011) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for Patwari training and consequential appointment on the post of Patwari. Her grievance is that only because she obtained a diploma in computer applications from C V Raman University, Bilaspur, her candidature has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also informed this Court that in an identical case in W.P.No.1465/2010 (S) Vijay Saudal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others decided on October 11, 2010, this Court while dealing with the case of identical placed persons, who have obtained Diploma in Computer Application from Dr. C.V.Raman University, Bilaspur has allowed the writ petition. Learned Dy. Government Advocate does not dispute the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid case. --- 2 --- This Court in the aforesaid order has held as under:- “Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Petition No.1465/2010 (s) are narrated hereunder. 2. The petitioners before this Court have 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 selected in the Patwari examination. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that they had obtained the certificate of Diploma in Computer Application by Dr.C.V.Raman University, Bilaspur and the same is recognized and affiliated by University Grant Commission. The petitioners 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. 4. A reply has been filed in the matter and --- 3 --- 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. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. 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 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 --- 4 --- 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”. --- 5 --- 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 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. --- 6 --- 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. The writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid. No order as to costs. Resultantly, as the controversy involved has already been decided in the aforesaid writ petition, therefore, the present petition is also allowed in terms of the aforesaid order and the order passed in case of Vijay Saudal and --- 7 --- others (Supra) shall be applicable mutatis mutandis in the present case also. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to conclude that Patwari training and to confer all consequential benefits as has been confirmed to other candidates who have completed the Patwari training. No order as to costs. C.C. as per rules. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR