JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal under section 18 of the Raj. High Court Ordinance has been filed by Miss Lalita against the order dated 23.7.93 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing her writ petition. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this special appeal are that the petitioner passed High School Certificate Examination (10+2) in the year 1991 from Secondary Board of Education Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal which is equivalent to High School Class of Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan. It is alleged that after passing High School Certificate Examination as aforesaid, she applied for admission in Government Senior Higher Secondary School, Phalodi Dist. Jodhpur in 11th Class as regular student whereupon she was given admission and studied as such. It is also alleged that she took examination in the year 1991-92 wherein she was declared successful vide Anx. 2. Thereafter she submitted application form for admission in 12th Class as a regular student along with requisite fees. She also submitted examination fees to the tune of र 100.50 for the Senior Higher Secondary examination of Secondary Board of Education Rajasthan, Ajmer which was sent to the Board along with application form. It is further alleged that the Board issued a letter dated 6.1.93 mentioning that as the petitioner did not secure 33% marks in Maths. she was not eligible for admission in 11th & 12th Class. Dissatisfied with this, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.3.93 permitted the petitioner to take examination provisionally. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 23.7.93. Hence, this special appeal. 3. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition while relying on Dharmendra Acharya v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1992 (1) RLR 335 . He has submitted that the petitioner has studied for continuous two years according to rules with the respondents and now she cannot be punished. He has relied on A. Sudha v. University of Mysore, (1987) 4 SCC 537 , Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur & Ors., 1989 (1) SCC 399 , Prahalad Kumar v. University of Raj., 1985 RLR 580 , Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, AIR 1986 SC 1448 . 4. Mr. He has relied on A. Sudha v. University of Mysore, (1987) 4 SCC 537 , Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur & Ors., 1989 (1) SCC 399 , Prahalad Kumar v. University of Raj., 1985 RLR 580 , Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, AIR 1986 SC 1448 . 4. Mr. Trivedi, counsel for the Board has submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition while relying on Dharmendra Acharya v. State of Rajasthan (RLR 1992 (1) 335) . He has relied on Home Secretary v. Darshjit Singh Grewal & Ors., JT 1993 (4) SC 387 , Ram Veer Singh Vs. Board of Secondary Education Raj., SBCWP No. 984/91 decided on 20.9.1991 and Rajesh Kumar Swami Vs. Board of Secondary Education Raj. Ajmer, DBCWP No. 707/87, Dated 26.7.88 decided on 26.7.1988 . 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the case law cited at Bar carefully. 6. The argument that when the petitioner was admitted she may be allowed to study cannot be accepted as the Board is an autonomous body and have its own rules. The eligibility for admission is regulated by Chapter 19 of the Rajasthan Secondary Education Regulation, which deals with Higher Secondary Examination. It is not disputed that as per provision, under the said regulation a candidate coming from the recoginsed institution, local Board or University in respect of 10+2 Scheme for the Secondary examination is required. to secure minimum pass marks i.e. 33% in each of the subjects. Admittedly, the petitioner appellant has secured only 35 marks out of 200 marks which comes about 17% as against 33% required for admission. Therefore, the petitioner being ineligible for admission cannot be granted any relief and she has been rightly declared ineligible to appear in the examination for want of basic qualification. If the respondent No. 2 had given admission to the petitioner without considering the eligibility of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot get any benefit out of this admission, the Board which is autonomous body cannot be directed to permit the petitioner to appear in examination. 7. If the respondent No. 2 had given admission to the petitioner without considering the eligibility of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot get any benefit out of this admission, the Board which is autonomous body cannot be directed to permit the petitioner to appear in examination. 7. So far as the contention that the petitioner may be allowed to prosecute her studies and her result may be declared as she took the examination under the interim order of this Court is concerned, it has no substance.It is urged that the petitioner has wasted her two valuable years. Though the learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.3.93 directed that the petitioner may be allowed to take examination provisionally of Senior Higher Secondary School but it was also observed that this order will confer no right on her.Now, when the writ petition has been dismissed and as stated above the petitioner has not been able to make out any case in this special appeal also, she cannot be granted any relief on the basis of interim orders. It is true that a good deal of period has been wasted but for that the petitioner herself if responsible and she cannot blame anyone particularly when she is ineligible. Under these circumstance, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. As regards the case law cited by the counsel for the appellant is concerned, the same is not helpful and has been considered and discussed in our recent decision rendered in Ashok Kumar Aseri v. University of Jodhpur, Reported in 1993 (2) RLR 530, decided on 8.10.93 wherein after considering the decisions cited by both the parties which have been placed before us in this case, it has been held that provisional admission granted on the basis of interim orders of this Court would confer no right to get the result declared. 8. In view of what we have discussed above, we don't find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23.7.93 and the special appeal deserves to be dismissed 9. Accordingly, this special appeal has no force, so it is hereby dismissed.Special appeal dismissed. *******