Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1171 (MP)

Narveer Singh v. State of M. P.

2009-10-06

S.C.SHARMA

body2009
ORDER 1. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in this batch of writ petition they were heard analogously together and disposed of by this singular order. For the sake of convenience the facts in writ petition No. 3424/2009 (S) are exposited herein. 2. The petitioners, before this Court have filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by an order dated 27.7.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Land Record and Settlement, M.P. by which he has directed all the Collectors through out the State of Madhya Pradesh to verify the certificates in respect of Computer qualification upto 20th August 2009, in respect of persons who appeared in the examination conducted by the M.P. Professional Examination Board for filling up 219 posts of Patwaris. 3. The petitioners have further stated that they have obtained certificates from recognized institutions and therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement is bad in law. The M.P. Professional Examination Board has issued an advertisement dated 5.6.2008 inviting applications for appointment of Patwari and as per essential qualifications required for the post of Patwari examination, a candidate must have passed higher secondary or High School (10+2) examination and must also possess "O" level certification from DOEACC/IETE or 1 year Diploma in Computer Application (DCA) from an institute affiliated/registered/recognized by a University which should have been recognized by University Grants Commission (UGC), or higher education in Computer. 4. The aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner, Land Revenue and Settlement was subjected to judicial scrutiny before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Neelesh Shukla and others v. State of M.P. and others in W.P.No. 8419/2009 in paragraphs 29, 30, 31 and 32 held as under: - "29. The submission of Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Rule 1.8 basically stipulated a certificate of one year diploma from an institute and the advertisement also stipulated accordingly. Clause 1.8 of Chapter 1 of the advertisement has been pressed into service. The same being translated into English reads as follows: "1.8 Educational qualifications- Passing of Higher Secondary or High School (10+2) is necessary. In addition 0' Level Certificate from DOEACC/ICTE or one year Diploma in Computer Application (DCA) from an institute run by a registered/recognized/affiliated with the University recognized by the UGC or higher education in computer." 30. The same being translated into English reads as follows: "1.8 Educational qualifications- Passing of Higher Secondary or High School (10+2) is necessary. In addition 0' Level Certificate from DOEACC/ICTE or one year Diploma in Computer Application (DCA) from an institute run by a registered/recognized/affiliated with the University recognized by the UGC or higher education in computer." 30. From the aforesaid it is perceptible that what was has been really stipulated is that a candidate must have one year Diploma in Computer Application (DCA) from an institute affiliated/registered/recognized by a University which is recognized by the University Grants Commission. The letter-circular provides that the certificate issued by a University containing seal and signature would be valid. The certificate issued by the institute on its own seal and signature of its authority is not to be accepted. The submission of Mr. Deepak Awasthi and Mr. Avinash Zargar is that the Rule and the advertisement are absolutely clear that the diploma course should be from an institute run by a recognized/registered/affiliated by a University which is recognized by the University Grants Commission. It is their stand that it is the University which issues a degree or diploma. In this context we may refer with profit to section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidayala Adhiniyam, 1973 which deals with the powers of the University. Sub-section (9) empowers the University to institute degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions. Sub-section (10) empowers the University to confer degrees and other academic distinctions on the basis of exan1inations, evaluation or any other method of testing. Sub-section (12) confers powers on the University to withdraw degree, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions for good and sufficient reasons. Thus, from the said provision it is crystal clear that it is the University which confers diplomas, degrees, certificates and other academic distinctions. 31. Be it noted, many of the candidates had produced certificates from the institutes run under the Maharshi Mahesh 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 learning 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. 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. Subsection 4 (1) (a) of section 4 reads as under:"4 (i) (a) grant, subject to such conditions 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 2 (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 stipulation 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. " 5. The Division Bench of this Court has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner, Land Record and Settlement and in the light of the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court as the order passed by the Commissioner has been upheld, no case is made out warranting interference in the matter. 6. Resultantly, all these petitions are dismissed.