IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT th ON THE 11 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 194 of 2012 VEERENDRA SINGH MEENA Versus STATE OF M.P AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Narottam Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri B.M. Patel – Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER

Present petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

“i) The order annexure P/1 may be quashed and the petitioner be held entitled for appointment on the basis of certificate annexure P/5 and the respondents may be directed issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner on the post of Patwari, iii) any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case including costs may also be granted, ”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that an advertisement was issued by the Vyavsayaik Pariksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh (VYAPAM) for selection of Patwaris in the Revenue Department. It is submitted that petitioner appeared in the examination and secured position at Serial No.6 in the merit. It is submitted that petitioner possesses certification in computer operations run by the M.P. Bhoj (Open) University, Bhopal. The said programme is of one year's duration (Basic Certification in Computer Operations). Thereafter, when petitioner's certificate was not considered by respondents then he preferred Writ Petition No.755/2010 which was disposed of by order dated 08.04.2011 in view of the detailed order passed in WP. No.2871/2010(S). Thereafter, petitioner submitted a representation and by impugned order dated 01/11/2011, the representation of petitioner has been rejected on the ground that petitioner is not having necessary qualification prescribed in the advertisement. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is having one year computer training certificate from M.P. Bhoj (Open) University, Bhopal and the University is being run by the State Government and it is a State University. It is submitted that the certificate obtained by petitioner is certainly equivalent to DCA course now being offered by the Universities. It is also submitted that the course studied by petitioner is certainly having more value and sanctity than “O” level certificate issued by DOEACC. On these premised submissions, learned counsel for petitioner submits that relief(s) sought for may be extended to petitioner by allowing the present petition.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/State submits that as per advertisement, the minimum educational qualification is that a candidate must have passed Higher Secondary or High School (10+2) Examination and must also possess 'O' Level Certification from DOEACC/IETE 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. It is further submitted that petitioner is not having the qualification of Diploma in Computer Application. Even, petitioner has not submitted any document which shows that qualification obtained by petitioner from M.P. Bhoj (Open) University is equivalent or higher education as compared to DCA. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that petitioner is having only a certificate and not the diploma and therefore, he is ineligible for appointment on the post of Patwari. On these grounds, learned counsel for respondent/State opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner and prays for dismissal of present petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The minimum necessary eligibility qualification mentioned in the advertisement is passing of Higher Secondary or High School (10+2) and in addition, 'O' Level Certification from DOEACC/IETE 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 h