JUDGMENT : (Passedin open Court on this 26th day of September, 2012) Per Krishn Kumar Lahoti , J. Asthe controversy involved in all these appeals are identical and based onsimilar set of facts, all these appeals are being decided by this common order.For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Writ Appeal No.680/2011. 2.This appeal is directed against an order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the WritCourt in Writ Petition No.1537/2010 (s) ( Bhanupuri Goswami s/o Rameshwarpuri Goswami v. State of Madhya Pradesh & three others), bywhich the writ petition preferred by the respondent was finally disposed of bythe order, which reads thus: “Thepetitioner before this court has filed this present petitioner being aggrievedby the communication dated 05.09.2009 (Annexure P/4) by which the Commissioner,Land Records has directed verification of the Certificate acquired by thepetitioner in respect of qualifications for the post of Patwari .Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has argued before this Courtthat similar writ petition has been decided involving the same controversy i.e.Writ Petition No.1697/2010. Learned Deputy Government Advocate does not disputethe same and has fairly stated before this Court that identical matters havealready been decided by this Court. This Court in Writ Petition No.1697/2010decided on 11.10.2010 has held, as under: - "WPNo. 1697/10 11/10/2010 Mr. M. Kumawat , learnedcounsel for the petitioner. Ms. Seema Sharma, learned GA for the respondents. The petitionerbefore this court has filed this present petitioner being aggrieved by thecommunication dated 5/9/09 .The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has obtained therequisite educational qualification certificate from Magadh University which is recognised by the University GrantsCommission and is a University established under the Bihar State University Act1976. The petitioner has also enclosed a list of Universities as approved bythe UGC as Annexure P/6. Name of the University in questiondoes finds place in the aforesaid list. The petitioners grievance is that by impugned communication the respondents have directed thepetitioner to produce a certificate from a recognised University, under the seal and signature of the University itself and thepetitioner has certainly furnished a certificate as contained in Annexure p/8dated 22/6/06 and thereforethe action of respondents is bad in law. The petitioners grievance is that by impugned communication the respondents have directed thepetitioner to produce a certificate from a recognised University, under the seal and signature of the University itself and thepetitioner has certainly furnished a certificate as contained in Annexure p/8dated 22/6/06 and thereforethe action of respondents is bad in law. A reply has been filed in the matterand the respondents in their return have stated that the controversy involvedin the present case is covered by the judgment delivered by a Division Bench ofthis Court in the case of Ajay Awasthi and others Vs.State of M.P .& Ors., WP No. 8802/2009 and acertificate issued by University recognised by the UniversityGrants Commission can only be taken into account for the purposes of fulfillingthe requisite qualification. It has also been stated that the certificateshould bear seal of the University and signature of the competent authority.The respondents have stated that large number of candidateshave produced fake certificates and certificates from institution not recognised by DOEACC/IETE/UGC and therefore action wasinitiated against all such candidates in the matter. Respondents have prayedfor dismissal of the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties atlength and perused the record. In the present case the petitioner has obtaineda post graduate diploma in computer application from Magadh University , Bodhgaya and the certificate reflects that it hasbeen issued by the University and bears signature of Controller of Examination.The list enclosed along with the writ petition in respect of Universitiesaffiliated by UGC includes Magadh University also. The petitioner hasalso enclosed a document obtained through internet issued by the UniversityGrants commission which makes it clear that Magadh University is affiliated with University Grants Commission and the University is also aMember of Association of Indian Universities. It is not the case of therespondents that Magadh University is not recognised University nor the respondents in their returnhave stated that the certificate issued by the University in favour of the petitioner is not a certificate issued underthe seal and signatures of the competent officer of the University. It is not the case of therespondents that Magadh University is not recognised University nor the respondents in their returnhave stated that the certificate issued by the University in favour of the petitioner is not a certificate issued underthe seal and signatures of the competent officer of the University. This courthas carefully gone trough the judgment delivered by the Division Bench and theDivision Bench also observed that diplomas or certificates issued with the sealof the University and the signatures of the competent authority of theUniversity will have to be accepted and if such seal and signatures are notthere then such certificates cannot be accepted in the matter of qualification.In the present case as the petitioner has filed a certificate issued by theUniversity with signatures of the competent authorities of the Universities andthe same has not been disputed by the respondent State, the impugned orderpassed by the respondent State as contained in Annexure P/1 is hereby quashed.The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. However, aliberty is granted to the State Government to verify the certificate issued bythe Magadh University in the matter. (S.C. SHARMA) JUDGE " Keeping in view the aforesaid decision of this Court,as the petitioner has filed the certificate issued by Magadh University with the signatures of the competent officer of the University and the same hasnot been disputed by the respondent-State, the impugned order passed by therespondent-State as contained in Annexure P/4 is hereby quashed. The petitionershall be entitled for all consequential benefits. However, a liberty is grantedto the State Government to verify the certificate issued by the Magadh University in the matter.” 3.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that along with thisappeal, she has moved an application (IA No.1522/2012) for placing certaindocuments on record under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that after passing ofthe order by the learned Single Judge, the appellants herein have got thecertificate issued by Magadh University verified from theUniversity and it is revealed that the aforesaid certificate was not issued by Magadh University .It is submitted that in view of this subsequent event, this appeal may beentertained. 4.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that after passing ofthe order by the learned Single Judge, the appellants herein have got thecertificate issued by Magadh University verified from theUniversity and it is revealed that the aforesaid certificate was not issued by Magadh University .It is submitted that in view of this subsequent event, this appeal may beentertained. 5.From perusal of the impugned order, we find that a liberty was granted to theState Government to verify the certificate issued by Magadh University in the matter and if the appellants herein have verified thecertificate issued by Magadh University and if it isfound that the certificate was not issued by the Magadh University, then the appellants herein may communicate their decision to therespondent (s). But, on the aforesaid ground, it is not necessary for thisCourt to entertain this appeal and to decide the matter. 6.As the appellants herein have not taken any final decision in the matter, theymay take a final decision, after issuing a show cause notice to the respondent(s) and to communicate the decision to the respondent (s). 7.With the aforesaid clarification, these appeals are finally disposed of, withno order as to costs.