Rajendra Saxena, J.
1. Aforementioned petitioners by means of these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have prayed that the office order dated 26/4/91, issued by the Superintendent, Associated Group of Hospitals, Jodhpur (respondent No. 2) cancelling their admission in the Radiographers Training Course, be declared illegal and quashed and the respondents be directed to treat them eligible for the said course and allow them to continue in the said course and to declare their result.
2. Since the facts of both the writ petitions are similar and identical points of law are involved therein, they are being disposed of by a common order.
3. Now briefly the facts. It is alleged that the petitioners passed Uttar Madhyama (Intermediate) Examination, 1990 in first division from the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi with Shanskrit, Hindi, English, Physics, Chemistry and Biology subjects vide their marksheets Annex. 1.
The State Govt. through the Director, Medical Health and Family Welfare Services, Raj., Jaipur (respondent No. 1) by notification dated 23-7-90 (Annex. 2) invited applications for Radiographers Training Course and one of the eligibility condition was that the candidate should have passed first year of the Three years Degree Course (T.D.C.) or 10 + 2 Science (Chemistry, Physics and Biology).
4. In pursuance of the said notification, petitioner Dinesh submitted his application and was selected vide office order dated 24-9-90. However, he was directed to submit solid proof to prove that the Institution from which he is alleged to have passed the Intermediate examination is affiliated to a University of the State and that the said examination has been recognised by the Rajasthan University or the Jodhpur University. It was also clearly mentioned that in absence thereof, it will not be possible to select him for the course in question. Petitioner Dinesh submitted a Migration Certificate dated 7-7-90 issued by the Registrar Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya as also the copy of the letter dated 29-11-69 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, whereby Uttar Madhyama Examination (with English) conducted by the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwa-vidyalaya, Varanasi was recognised as equivalent to Intermediate. It is alleged that after perusing those documents, petitioner Dinesh was granted admission in the said course, but all of a sudden by the impugned letter dated 26-4-91, his admission was cancelled on the ground that Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi is not a recognised University and that qualifying examination passed by him was not equivalent to First Year T.D.C. or 10 + 2 Science Examination and, therefore, he did not possess the minimum educational qualification for the said course.
5. Petitioner Prabhu Dayal submitted his application on 16-8-90 for the said course by hand but his application was not considered on the ground that the same was not submitted to respondent No. 2 by registered post. He, therefore, filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4804 of 1990 'Prabhu Dayal v. State ofRajasthan and anr.', which was allowed by this court's order dated 28-11-90 and respondents were directed to admit him in the said course by increasing one seat in case he was found otherwise suitable. In compliance of the said order, the respondent No. 2 issued a telegram intimating him that his qualification Uttar Madhyama (Intermediate) was not equivalent to first year T.D.C. or 10 + 2 Science and that if he had any proof for its equivalence then he should submit the same immediately. Thereupon petitioner Prabhudayal submitted an application for giving time to submit the required certificate. Ultimately, the respondent No. 2 by his order dated 13-12-90 graned him provisional admission in the Radiographers Training course. Petitioner Prabhudayal produced a certificate issued by the Registrar of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi along with the copy of letter dated 29-11-69 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi and continued in the said course. However by the impugned order dated 26-4-91, the respondents cancelled his admission.
6. It may be mentioned here that this Court by its ad interim stay orders dated 3-5-91 had directed that the petitioners shall be allowed to continue their studies in the course in question at their own risk. Thereafter, by another order D/-9-5-91 the ad interim stay order dated 3-5-91 was extended till further orders on the condition that the said stay order will not entitle the petitioners to get the Diploma of the required course on its completion, if the writ petitions were subsequently decided against them. It was further made clear that if the writ petitions were dismissed during the course then they shall not be entitled to further continue their studies in the said course. It may also be mentioned here that the duration of the Radiographers Training Course was eight months and that the aforementioned petitioners have already appeared in the final examination and their results were kept in a sealed cover. However, at the time of the final arguments, those envelopes were opened and as per their result sheets, the aforementioned petitioners passed the said training course.
7. The respondents in their reply have inter alia averred that the petitioners were provisionally selected subject to confirmation of their qualification from the University from which they had passed the Uttar Madhyama (Intermediate) Examination and after ascertaining that the said examination was recognised as equivalent to First Year, T.D.C. or 10 + 2 Science (Biology Group) by the State Government and the Rajasthan/ Jodhpur University. It has further been averred that there is no Institution bearing the name of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya enlisted as a University and recognised by the State Government or the Rajasthan/ Jodhpur University and that rather the said self-styled University has not been established by a Central or State Act and, therefore, the petitioners do not possess the requisite minimum qualification and have no right to get admission in the Radiographers Training course. It has been emphatically asserted by the respondents that after due enquiry, petitioners' admissions were rightly cancelled.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate at length and carefully perused the relevant record.
9. At the very outset, it will be relevant to mention that this court by its order dated 4-2-92 rendered in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 379/91 'Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyala Varanasi Shiksha Shastri Sangh, Barmerv. State of Raj. and anr.' after relying on the letter No. F. 6 (260) Edu-3/89 dated 14-2-91 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt., Education (Gr. 3) Department, Govt. of Rajasthan and the clarification issued by the University Grant Commission, New Delhi vide its letter No. F. 11-2(CPP) dated 26th Oct. 1990, has held that the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya was established in the year 1958 and that thereafter the Uttar Pradesh Govt. vide its notification dated 11-7-74 changed the name of said Institution and named it as Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi and thus the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyala's name remained in force up to 15-8-74 only. It was further held that Varanaseya SanskritVishwavidyalaya, Varanasi is now no more in existence. It was further held that the so called 'Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi' is neither a University established by Central or State Govt. nor it is a deemed University under Section 3 of the University Grant Commission Act, 1956 and as such it is not empowered to award its own degrees/ diplomas in terms of the provisions contained under Section 22 of the U. G. C. Act, 1956.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners do not dispute this factual position, but have submitted that even if it is held that Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi is not a University established by Centre or a State Govt. Act and that the Uttar Madhyama (Intermediate) Examination is not held to be equivalent to First Year, T.D.C. or 10 + 2 Science (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) still then the respondents, who had granted admissions to the petitioners after verifying their qualification or eligibility are now estopped from their conduct in cancelling their admissions because the petitioners have already undergone eight months training course and even passed the final examinations. According to them, had the petitioners been informed by the respondents at the time of their admissions that the Uttar Madhyama Examination was not recognised as equivalent to First Year T.D.C. then they would have taken admission in B. Sc. I Year and appeared in the said examination and that in the event of their passing the same, they would have become eligible for Radiographers Training Course for the next year i.e. 1991-92. Thus, the petitioners have been placed in such a worse position that their admissions in the Radiographers Training Course have been cancelled and that at the same time, they have also been deprived of their right to undertake further studies. Therefore, the impugned action of the respondents is highly arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, they have prayed that the petitioners should be declared successful for the Radiographers Training course and the respondents be directed to issue necessary certificates in their favour.
11. On the other hand, Mr. S. K. Vyas, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has vehemently contended that Varanaseya Vishwavidyalaya is a self styled Institution, which has neither been created by any Central or State Act nor has been recognised as a deemed University under the U. G. C. Act, 1956. Rather, it is a fake and bogus Institution, which is not at all empowered to award any degree/diploma and, therefore, on the basis of fake certificates/marksheets, petitioners are not entitled to any relief invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. He has contended that petitioners have misled the respondents and misrepresented before this Court by producing marksheets Annex. 1 issued by a fake and bogus Institution, which is not a University created either under any Central or State Statute or is a deemed University. Hence, the petitioners cannot be held to have passed I year TDC or 10 + 2 Science (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) Examination, which was the minimum qualification required for admission under the Radiographers Training course. According to him, the petitioners have not come with clean hands. Moreover, this Court had specifically mentioned in its ad interim order that the provisional ad mission granted to them was at their own risk and that in case their writ petitions are dismissed, they shall not be entitled to get the diploma of the said course. According to him, the respondents are neither estopped from cancelling their admissions nor the scales of equity tilt in their favour.
12. I have given my most anxious and careful consideration to the rival contentions. As per this Court's order dated 4-2-92 rendered in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 379/91, it is no more res integra that after due enquiry, it has been held that the so called Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi is neither a University established by any Central or State Govt. Act nor a deemed University under Section 3 of the U.G.C. Act, 1956 and as such this self styled University is not at all empowered to award any degree/diploma in terms of the provisions contained in Section 22 of the said Act. As a matter of fact, after the renaming of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi in the year 1974, there does not exist any legal and official Universityunder the name and style of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varasansi. Therefore, the marksheets Annex. 1 issued by the so-called self styled Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, which is a fake and bogus Institution, have no legal force and these cannot be regarded/recognised either equivalent to First Year TDC or 10 + 2 Science (Physics, Chemistry & Biology) Examination by the State Government or by the Rajasthan/Jodhpur University. The marksheets Annex. 1, therefore, have been issued by a fake and bogus Institution and the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the petitioners did not possess even the minimum educational qualifications required for the Radiographers Training course.
13. The petitioners have averred that they have passed the Higher Secondary examination in Commerce/Arts subjects from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, but no such certificate has been filed by them. Even Higher Secondary Examination cannot be held to be equivalent to First Year T.D.C. or 10 + 2 Science (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) Examination. Therefore, refracted from any angle, petitioners do not possess the minimum educational qualification for admission in the Radiographers Training course.
14. The petitioners have relied on the following cases:
'(1) Shri Krishnan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, AIR 1976 SC 376;
(2) R. K. Khandelwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (1981) 3 SCC 592 : AIR 1981 SC 1673;
(3) Gulab Chand v. University of Jodhpur, 1985(1)WLN (UC) 8;
(4) Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, AIR 1986 SC 1448;
(5) Miss Manju Kumari v. Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, 1991 (2) RLR 135; and
(6) Dr. Anurag Gupta v. The State of Rajasthan, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1863 of 1990 decided on Jan. 27, 1992.'
I have carefully gone through all these cases. In Shri Krishan's case (supra), petitioner was allowed to appear at the part I Law Examination in 1972 but subsequently, it was cancelled on the grounds that he was facing a criminal case under Section 376, I.P.C., that his character certificate was withheld by the Competent Authority, that there was shortage of percentage in his attendance and that he had not submitted a certificate from his Employer for pursuing the LL. B. course. It was found that the petitioner had been acquitted in the said criminal case and that neither the Head of the Department nor the University Authorities had taken care to scrutinise his admission form. The petitioner had passed some papers of LL. B. Part I and was also allowed to appear at Part II Law Examination in May, 1973. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the University Authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel his candidature for that examination because they had acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the candidate to appear in the examination then by force of University Statute and that the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the candidate. Evidently, such are not the facts of the case in hand. Here, the petitioners submitted their application forms on the basis of the marksheets Annex. 1, which were issued by a fake and bogus Institution. The said Institution has no authority to issue any degree/ diploma. This Institution has also not been recognized by any University. The respondents from the very beginning have asked the petitioners to submit solid proof that the marksheets Annex. 1 were equivalent to First Year T.D.C. or 10 + 2 Science Examination. The petitioners knowing fully well that the marksheets Annex. 1 had been issued by a fake University, misrepresented the facts before the respondents as well as in this Court. In such circumstances, Shri Krishan's case does not come to the rescue of petitioners.
15. In R.K. Khandelwal's case (supra), the appellant sought admission to the M. D. course in Paediatrics and candidates securing highest marks in order of merit in M. B. B. S. course were preferred for admission to thelimited number of seats, regardless of year of passing their degree examination. The appellant had stood lower in merit than those selected against the available seats. It was held that he had no legal claim to admission. The Hon'ble Apex Court, however held that the appellant should not be placed in a position worse than that prevailing prior to his filing of the appeal. The appellant had appeared in the M. D. examination on completion of the course in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Authority shall take a sympathetic view of appellant's case and have his result declared and that the authorities concerned shall bear in mind that the appellant should not be placed in a worse position than he would have been in had he not filed the appeal. In that case, since the appellant was provisionally admitted in the M. D. course in Paediatrics, the College had cancelled his admission to the D.C.H. course on the ground that no candidate can do both the courses simultaneously. Apparently, such are not the facts of the case in hand. On the basis of the marksheets Annex. 1 which have been issued by a bogus and fake Institution, the petitioners could not have been admitted in the B. Sc. course. Therefore, by cancelling their admissions in the Radiographers Training Course, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that they have been placed in a position worse than that prevailing prior to their filing application for the course in question. Hence, this case renders no assistance to the petitioners.
16. In Gulab Chand's case (supra), the writ petition was dismissed and it was held that technicalities should not stand in way while dealing with the career of the students and that petitioner should be allowed benefit despite his undertaking that he would not claim advantage under the ad interim order issued by the Court for his admission. Suffice it to add here that since the petitioners do not possess the minimum educational qualification required for the admission in the Radiographers Training Course, merely by undergoing the course in question and passing the same do not entitle them for the award of a diploma/certificate or to seekemployment as a Radiographer, because they inherently lack the minimum educational qualifications required for the eligibility. Hence, this case also does not help the petitioners.
17. In Rajendra Prasad's case (supra), examination passed by the students from the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan, was not recognised as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination held by the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore, which constituted the basis for admission to the Engineering Degree Course. However, many students from Rajasthan were admitted in certain Engineering Colleges in Karnataka for the sake of capitation fees and they pursued their course for about four years Under the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court. It was held that the Colleges giving admission were responsible for giving wrongful admissions for the sake of taking capitation fees and that students should not suffer for the sins of the management of those Engineering colleges. In such circumstances, those students were allowed to continue their studies. Apparently, the facts of this case are distinguishable. In the instant case, from the very beginning, the respondents had asked petitioners to submit solid proof to show that they possessed minimum educational qualifications required for the course in question. Hence, Rajendra Prasad's case also does not come to the rescue of petitioners.
18. In Miss Manju Kumari's case (supra), petitioners were given admmior by the college affiliated to Board of Secondary Education and they pursued their studies for one/two years. Permission to allow petitioners to appear in examination of Sr. Higher Secondary was cancelled by the Secondary Board on the ground that they did not obtain 33% required minimum marks in a subject. It was held that when the students were given admission by the School recognised by the Board, their candidature cannot be cancelled on the ground that they had not obtained the required marks in Secondary Examination, which they passed from other Board, recognised by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan. Again the facts of thiscase are poles apart from the facts of the case in hand. Here, the petitioners have not passed the 'Uttar Madhyama' Examination conducted by any University created by any Statute of the Centre or State Govt. On the other hand, Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya is a fake and bogus Institution. The respondents have from the very beginning questioned that the markesheets Annex. 1 were not equivalent to the minimum educational qualification required for the course in question. On the other hand, petitioners misrepresented the facts and committed fraud before the respondents as well as before this Court and on that basis got an ad interim stay order in their favour. In the said ad interim order, which was modified after hearing the parties, this Court by its order D/-9-5-91 had in most unequivocal, unambiguous and clear terms made it clear that the said ad interim order shall not entitle the petitioners to get the diploma of the course in question on its completion if their writ petitions were subsequently decided against them. Thus, the petitioners continued their course and appeared in the examination at their own risk, since they even do not possess the basic minimum qualification required for the Radiographers course, they do not have any vested legal right for getting the diploma/ certificate of the said course.
19. The facts of Dr. Anurag Gupta's case (supra) are clearly distinguishable. Since the petitioners do not possess the minimum educational qualification required for the course in question, they are not entitled for any sympathetic view and to get the relief sought by them.
20. In Chhatradhar Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2911/1992 decided on Nov. 24, 1992, petitioners passed their Intermediate Examination (Science) from the Central Board of Higher Education, New Delhi and on that basis sought admission in G. N, M. training course run by Medical Department. They passed the first year examination on the basis of the interim stay order by which they were given provisional admission. On enquiry, it was found that those certificates were issuedby a different private Institution registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and was not recognised by the Department of Education, Govt. of India or Directorate of Education, Delhi Administration; that the Central Board of Higher Education, new Delhi was a bogus Institution and that the petitioners had not come with the clean hands. It was held that in such a case, the doctrine of equiatable estoppel did not come into play; that the petitioners did not fulfil the qualification for admission to the G. N. M. training course and that they had defrauded the authorities on the basis of the fake certificates and, therefore, they were not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
21. Moreover, in Dharmendra Acharya v. State of Rajasthan, 1992 (2) Western Law Cases 202, a Division Bench of this court has held that the Court should not uphold admissions wrongfully granted, made against the rules and that the Court should not become a party to maintain wrongful admissions made or obtained by interested parties against clear instructions of the Board set out in the prospectus in force.
22. In Smt. Manju Lata v. Hitkari Co-opearative Shiksha Mahila Mahavidyalaya reported in 1987 (II) RLR 84, the petitioner was not eligible for admission in B. Ed. course but was given admission by the College and she studied regularly. She was denied from appearing in the examination by the University. She appeared in the examination under the ad interim order of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court held that her appearance in the examination under the order of this Court will not confer any right since her admission in B. Ed. course was against the rules, that she was not entitled to any relief and her writ petition was dismissed. Similar are the facts of the case in hand.
23. Hence, in the premise of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the cancellation of the petitioners' admission was neither illegal nor without jurisdiction nor the respondents are estopped from cancelling their admission because the principle of equitable and promissoryestoppel does not operate in this case.
24. Therefore, I dismiss both these writ petitions and hold that petitioners are not entitled to get the diploma/certificate of the Radiographers Training Course. No order as to costs.