Judgment ( 1 ) THIS special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8th Nov. 1993 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. ( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. ( 3 ) THE Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan is an autonomous body having its own rules. The eligibility for admission is regulated by Chapter 19 of the Rajasthan Secondary Education Regulations, which deals with Higher Secondary Examination. Relevant provision of the Regulations reads as under:-"2 (A) Maximum marks for each subject of external examination are 100 except in the case of Science without practical for which maximum marks are 75. Minimum pass marks in each subject are 33% or Grade D-2". ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, the appellant did not obtain 33% marks in Mathematics and had only obtained 26 marks in grade e whereas under the rules of Board of Secondary Education as quoted above if a candidate obtains less than 33% marks in one of the papers of 10th Class examination, he / she is not entitled to admission for 11th Class. But he was given admission by a private school in 11th Class and successfully took the examination. When the appellant wanted to appear in 12th Class Examination to be conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan it was found that the appellant had obtained less than 33% marks in one of the subjects of 10th Class, therefore, his admission in 11th Class is of no avail. It is pertinent to note that appellant never complied with the letter dated 23-9-1993 (Annexure 3) for showing his eligiblity, which was received by him on 5-10-1993. It was also informed him vide letter dated 14-10-1992 in response to his application dated 6-10-1993 that he was not eligible as per rules and notification dated 17-6-1992 (Annexure R. 1) and 4-7-1992 (Annexure R. 2), therefore, his admission in 11th Class is of no avail and not entitled for any direction. It was also informed him vide letter dated 14-10-1992 in response to his application dated 6-10-1993 that he was not eligible as per rules and notification dated 17-6-1992 (Annexure R. 1) and 4-7-1992 (Annexure R. 2), therefore, his admission in 11th Class is of no avail and not entitled for any direction. ( 5 ) IF Board of Education had admitted the appellant for 11th Class or had allowed the appellant to sit in the examination for 12th Class to be conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, the matter would have been different but as stated above the appellant was given admission by a private school and he appeared in the examination conducted by that school by way of internal examination and was not conducted by the Board of Secondary Examination, Rajathan. Therefore, we are of the opinion that once everything is done behind the back of the Board, it was well within its rights to declare the appellant not eligible to appear in Class XII Examination on the reason that he has secured less than 33% marks in Class X in Mathematics subject. ( 6 ) SO far as the contention that now when the appellant has been admitted in 11th class and passed the same, he may be permitted to appear in the Senior Higher Secondary, is concerned, as discussed above is not tenable particularly when the petitioner-appellant was not having minimum qualification, he could not be admitted to XIth Class. In view of this, the appellant cannot derive any benefit and the principle of estopped cannot be pressed into service. It is not out of place to mention here that the recent trend of the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court is very much clear that no indulgence should be granted in such cases. In Dinesh v. State (306 / 93) decided on 25-8-1994 this court even when the incumbent prosecuted study under the interim orders of this Court, relief sought was not granted since the incumbent was not having minimum qualification. Same view has been expressed in Ashok Kumar v. University of Jodhpur (WLC 1993-321 ). ( 7 ) IN view of what we have discussed above, we find no error in the order of the learned single Judge. Same view has been expressed in Ashok Kumar v. University of Jodhpur (WLC 1993-321 ). ( 7 ) IN view of what we have discussed above, we find no error in the order of the learned single Judge. We may refer to another Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Miss Lalita v. Board of Secondary Education (D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 442 / 94) dated 11 -10-1993 wherein the petitioner was not allowed to continue her study after dismissal of the writ petition and held that no relief can be granted on the basis of ad interim stay order, which is more nearer to the present case. Consequently, this special appeal has force and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.