JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner was initally selected for appointment to the post of Patwari, he was sent on training and while undergoing training before his appointment by the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 20.4.2012 his appointment has been cancelled, therefore, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Inter alia contending that petitioner is duly qualified and his appointment is cancelled merely because some orders have been passed by the High Court in a writ petition, which is not pertaining to the petitioner, challenge is made to the impugned action. 3. Shri R.L. Arha, learned counsel taking me through documents and material available on record, tried to emphasize that petitioner is appointed after due selection and due scrutiny of his documents, therefore, now no occasion arises for terminating his services, accordingly he submitted that the termination is illegal. 4. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate invites my attention to the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rakesh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 1925/2010 and various other cases vide Annexure P-7 and points out that the peititioner was a graduate, having obtained a B.A. Degree with Computer Science as one of the subject. As all appointments made were scrutinized again in the light of law laid down in the case of Rakesh Yadav (supra), finding petitioner to be not qualified, his appointment is cancelled. That being so, it is stated by Shri Rajesh Tiwari that no error has been committed by respondents. 5. That apart, Shri Rajesh Tiwari invites my attention to the computer qualification acquired by petitioner as contained in Annexure P-10 and points out that it is only a Computer Programming Diploma conduced by a private institute, namely Capital Computer New Delhi, which is neither affiliated nor recognized by the University Grants Commission or any University and, therefore, as petitioner’s qualification in computer science is not found to be in accordance to the prescribed qualification it is stated that impugned action is taken. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rakesh Yadav (supra) has laid down the principle that to be eligible for appointment as a Patwari, the candidate should have adequate qualification of diploma in computer application from a recognized university and merely if a candidate is post graduate or graduate with computer science as one of subject it is not fulfillment of the prescribed qualification. In the light of aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench all the cases have been reviewed and such of the persons who are found to be disqualified in view of law laid down by Division Bench are proceeded against. From the qualification of petitioner it is clear that he has done B.A. with Computer Science as one of the subject and in view of law laid down in the case of Rakesh Yadav (supra) he is not eligible to seek appointment to the post in question on the basis of this qualification. 7. That apart, even the computer diplome filed by petitioner vide Annexure P-10 is nothing but a course undertaken from an institute which is neither recognized by the UGC or affiliated to any other University. It is a case where petitioner did not possess requisite minimum qualification of being post graduate diploma holder in computer science and, therefore, in terminating his service on the aforesaid ground, respondents have not committed any error which warrants interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly finding no merits on the claim made by petitioner the petition is dismissed.