JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition feeling aggrieved of rejection of her candidature for Lower Division Clerk pursuant to advertisement No. 458 dated 12.02.2013. 2. The facts relevant for the present petition are that the respondents issued the advertisement aforesaid on 12.02.2013, which contained following eligibility criteria: ^^5- 'kS{kf.kd o iz'kSf{kd ¼U;wure½ ;ksX;rk %& vkosnd }kjk vkosnu izLrqr djus dh vafre fnukad rd fu/kkZfjr 'kS{kf.kd@iz'kS{kf.kd vgZrk;sa vftZr dj yh xbZ gksA fu/kkZfjr U;wure ;ksX;rk fuEukuqlkj gS %& vkosnd fdlh ekU;rk izkIr cksMZ ls lhfu;j lSd.Mjh ;k mlds lerqY; ijh{kk mŸkh.kZ gksuk vko';d gS rFkk bysDVªksfuDl foHkkx] Hkkjr ljdkj ds fu;U=.kk/khu Mh-vks-bZ-,-lh-lh- }kjk vk;ksftr ;k mPprj Lrj izek.ki= ikBz;Øe ;k O;kolkf;d izf'k{k.k Ldhe dh jk"Vªh;@jkT; ifj"kn ds v/khu vk;ksftr dEI;wVj vkijsVj vkSj izksxkfeax vflLVsaV ¼lh-vks-ih-,½@MkVk fizis'ku vkSj dEI;wVj lkVos;j ¼Mh-ih-lh-,l-½ izek.k i=A ;k Hkkjr es fof/k }kjk LFkkfir fdlh fo'ofo|ky; ls ;k ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fdlh laLFkk ls dEI;wVj lkabl@dEI;wVj ,Iyhds'kal es fMIyksekA ;k ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fdlh ikyhVsfDud laLFkk ls dEI;wVj lkabl vkSj bathfu;fjax esa fMIyksekA ;k jktLFkku ukyst fuxe fyfeVM ds fu;a=.kk/khu o/kZeku egkohj [kqyk fo'ofo|ky; dksVk }kjk vk;ksftr lwpuk izks|ksfxdh ¼vkj-,l-lh-vkbZ-Vh½ esa izek.ki= ikB~;Øe^^ 3. The petitioner desirous of seeking appointment, filled her application form in widow category and in support of her eligibility regarding computer proficiency, she relied upon a certificate of computer proficiency, issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya. 4. The petitioner falling in merit, was called for the document verification, however, she was refused appointment as according to the respondents, petitioner's qualification of computer application was not recognized inasmuch as the same was done from Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya by distance course in Rajasthan. 5. Mr. Bhati learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the petitioner's rejection, submitted that the advertisement required diploma in computer application, which requirement is duly fulfilled by the petitioner, as is evident from her certificate dated 28.03.2013, issued by Mahatma Gandhi University. 6. Inviting the Court's attention towards averments made in para No. 2 of the reply, he submitted that according to the respondents themselves (as indicated in the letter dated 07.01.2014, written by University Grants Commission) the said University of Meghalaya had a recognition for a period of three years (2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14). He argued that petitioner acquired her qualification on 28.03.2013, well within the period during which recognition of such University was valid. He argued that petitioner acquired her qualification on 28.03.2013, well within the period during which recognition of such University was valid. He vehemently argued that respondents' action of rejecting her candidature was illegal. 7. Per contra, Mr. Piyush Bhandari associate of Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG urged that the rejection of petitioner's candidature was absolutely in order and respondents were justified in rejecting the same for the reasons detailed in para No. 2 & 9 of the reply. 8. Inviting the Courts attention towards para No. 2 & 9 and communication dated 07.01.2014, issued by the University Grants Commission, it was argued that the petitioner's certificate of computer application was obtained through distance mode, while the petitioner was in Balotra; and that the said University at Meghalaya was not authorized to issue such certificate beyond the territorial contours of Meghalaya, as has been clarified by the University Grants Commission in its letter dated 07.01.2014. 9. Heard. 10. At the first flush, what has been argued on behalf of the petitioner appears to be attractive, however, a deeper scrutiny of the material available on record unravels that the petitioner's certificate of computer application, obtained from Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya, is not in accordance with law; more particularly considering the UGC norms. 11. True it is, that the University Grants Commission had clarified that the Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya had a recognition for a period of 2011-12 to 2013-14, but the letter dated 07.01.2014 is with a qualification or caveat that the said University did not have any authority to provide franchises to an institute situated outside the territories of Meghalaya. 12. It will not be out of place to reproduce relevant part of the communication dated 07.01.2014, concerning Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya. 2. Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya: Based on the decision of the erstwhile Distance Education Council and Tripartite Committee, Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya (A State Private University) had been accorded recognition for a period of three academic years, w.e.f. 2011 to 12-13-14 for offering specific programmes through distance mode (Annexure-2). The study centres are simply facilitators in programme delivery. No University/Institution is allowed to franchise the Study centres; the Universities/Institutions will have to operate the study centres themselves. The study centres are simply facilitators in programme delivery. No University/Institution is allowed to franchise the Study centres; the Universities/Institutions will have to operate the study centres themselves. The DEC in its 40th meeting held on 08.06.2012 has decided on the policy of territorial jurisdiction in respect on the open and distance learning institution which is stated that "in case of State Universities (both Govt., funded & private), the territorial jurisdiction will be as per their Acts and Statutes but not beyond the boundaries of their respective state". Therefore, the territorial jurisdiction of Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya is state of Meghalaya only. 13. A simple reading of the clarification issued by University Grants Commission leaves no room for ambiguity that petitioner's certificate of computer application cannot be said to be a valid certificate. 14. It is pertinent to note that in the matters of validity or authenticity of certificate of any course, clarification issued by the University Grants Commission has to be given due weightage. 15. In view of the clarification issued by the University Grants Commission dated 07.01.2014, to the effect that Mahatma Gandhi University was not authorized to give franchise, the petitioner's certificate obtained while remaining in Rajasthan cannot be said to be valid. 16. The petitioner has neither pleaded nor placed any material on record that she had acquired her computer application certificate from any institute or center of Meghalaya or she had otherwise attended the course at Meghalaya. 17. It is to be noticed that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prof. Yashpal & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. reported in (2005) 5 SCC 420 has depreciated the practice of maintaining center's outside of state limits and held that a State/State Private Universities cannot operate beyond the territorial limits of the state, as the same is outside the legislative competence of the state legislature. Relevant part whereof is being reproduced here under; "Dr. Dhawan has also drawn the attention of the Court to certain other provisions of the Act which have effect outside the State of Chhattisgarh and thereby give the State enactment an extra territorial operation. Section 2(f) of the amended Act defines 'off-campus center' which means a center of the University established by it outside the main campus (within or outside the State) operated and maintained as its constituent unit having the university's complement of facilities, faculty and staff. Section 2(f) of the amended Act defines 'off-campus center' which means a center of the University established by it outside the main campus (within or outside the State) operated and maintained as its constituent unit having the university's complement of facilities, faculty and staff. Section 2(g) defines "off-shore campus" and it means a campus of the university established by it outside the country, operated and maintained as its constituent unit, having the university's complement of facilities, faculty and staff. Section 3(7) says that the object of the University shall be to establish main campus in Chhattisgarh and to have the study centers at different places in India and other countries. In view of Article 245(1) of the Constitution, Parliament alone is competent to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India and the legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State. The impugned Act which specifically makes a provision enabling a University to have an off-campus center outside the State is clearly beyond the legislative competence of the Chhattisgarh legislature." 18. During the course of argument Mr. Bhati Submitted that it was incumbent upon the respondent employee to verify the educational qualification acquired by the petitioner. In considered opinion of this Court, such burden cannot be shifted rather hoisted upon respondents. It is the petitioner, who has to establish that the qualification acquired by her is valid and so also the aspect that the educational qualification acquired by her is valid otherwise. Respondents cannot be expected, much less compelled to go on enquiring about a candidate's educational qualification. They could at the best ask UGC, which they have done. 19. As a result of discussion aforesaid, the petition fails. 20. Stay petition also stands dismissed.