Honble JAIN, J. — These special under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.03.1993 whereby he has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants by a common order holding that petitioners are not entitled to get the diploma/certificate of the Radiographers Training Course. (2). Since these appeals are directed against common order of learned Single Judge, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. (3). For convenient disposal of these appeals, the facts of D.B.C.Special Appeal No. 306/93(Dinesh Vs. State) are being taken into consideration. (4). Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the appellant Dinesh are that in pursuance of the notification issued by the Director, Medical Health & Family Welfare Services, Rajas than, Jaipur by which applications were invited for Radiographers Training Course, the petitioner-appellant who was holding Uttar Madhyama(Intermediate) Examination, 1990 certificate from the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Varanasi, applied and he was selected but the respondents asked him vide letter dated 4.12.1190 to prove that the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwa Vidhalaya, Varanasi is affiliated to any University of the State and that the said examination passed by him is reconognised one otherwise he will not be selected for the course. On his submitting a letter dated 29.11.1969 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India recognising Uttar Madhyama Examination (With English) equivalent to Intermediate, he was given provisional admission. Thereafter vide order dt. 26.4.1991 the respondents cancelled the admission of both the petitioners. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner-appellants Dinesh and Prabhu Dayal approached this court by means of writ petitions under Article 226. (5). This court vide order dt. 3.5.1991 while issuing notice granted ad-interim order allowing them to continue their study on their own risk. (6). Reply to the writ petition was filed stating that the petitioners were only given provisional admission which was subject to recognition of the examination passed by them. It was also stated that the institution viz. Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavid hyalaya is not a recognised by the State Government and rather it is a self styled University which has not been established by a Central or State Act and the petitiners who were not having minimum qualification for selection in the Course were rightly disallowed. (7). It was also stated that the institution viz. Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavid hyalaya is not a recognised by the State Government and rather it is a self styled University which has not been established by a Central or State Act and the petitiners who were not having minimum qualification for selection in the Course were rightly disallowed. (7). The learned Single Judge after considering the material on record as well as the case law cited at Bar dismissed the writ petitions as aforesaid vide order dt. 19.03.1993. Hence, the petitioners have preferred these special appeals on 24.04.1993. (8). Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellants, has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that having granted admission once to the appellants with open eyes it was not open now for the institution to cancel the admission of the appellants and the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the respondents are not estopped by princi-ples of promisory estoppel. He has contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the appellants are not entitled to get the benefit of the admission and of the studies completed by them since they have continued study under the interini orders of this Court and passed the same. (9). We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order so also the case law cited at Bar. (10). The legal position that Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalaya, Varanasi is a fake and bogus institution and this self styled University is not at all empowered to award any degree/diploma since it is neither a University established by any Central or State Act nor a deemed University, has not been controverted by Mr. Singhvi. The only question which arises for consideration in these appeals is once the respondents gave the appellants admission and, thereafter, they successfully prosecuted study under the orders of this Court whether they were entitled to get the diploma/certificate of the Course or not. (11). It is no doubt true that if the Government or public auhority makes a promise or representation it must make good that promise but since the doctrine of promissory estoppel is anequitable doctrine, it would be subject to limitations to which all equitable rights and obligations are subject. (11). It is no doubt true that if the Government or public auhority makes a promise or representation it must make good that promise but since the doctrine of promissory estoppel is anequitable doctrine, it would be subject to limitations to which all equitable rights and obligations are subject. In the instant case, the non-petitiqner-respondents have stated in their reply that the petitioner-appellant were given admission provisionally which means they were not bound by the admission so given to them and it was subject to confirmation of their qualification from the University from which they had passed the Uttar Madhyama (Intermedial) Examination and after ascertaining that the said examination was recognised as equivalent to First Year, TDC or 10 + 2 Science (Biology Group) by the State Government and the Rajasthan/Jodhpur University. When the said conditions were not satisfied after due enquiry they had cancelled the admission of the petitioner-appellants since they did not possess the minimum requisite qualification. In view of this, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the principle of equitable and promissory estoppel does not operate in this case, in our opinion, is just and calls for no interference. (12). Now it brings us to the contentions that when petitioner- appellants have passed the Course under the interim orders of this Court, they may be declared pass and the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the petitioners are not entitled to get the diploma/certificate may be set aside. (13). Undoubtedly, under the interim orders the petitioner- appellants have passed the Radiographers Training Course but at the same time it cannot be lost sight that the petitioner- appellants not only lack minimum requisite qualification to enter in training course but also they procured the selection . on the basis of certificate of a fake and bogus University, which has no legal existence. Moreso, the petitioner-appellants have success fully misrepresented and misled the authorities as well as this court by producing marksheet of such a self styled University and obtained interim order. on the basis of certificate of a fake and bogus University, which has no legal existence. Moreso, the petitioner-appellants have success fully misrepresented and misled the authorities as well as this court by producing marksheet of such a self styled University and obtained interim order. That apart in the ad-interim order granted by this court on 3.5.91 it has been specifically men tioned that the continuance of the petitioners will be at their risk and further while extending the same on 9.5.91 it was observed that the extension will be subject to 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 are subsequently decided against them. A stay order preserves the rights of the parties for the period it remains in operation, but it does not confer any right which it does not recognise due to dismissal of the writ petition. The petitioner cannot claim any right to get diploma/certificate of the course in question on the strength of the interim orders so passed in the stay application for the simple reason that if a person is not entitled to the relief in the main writ petition, he cannot obtain the same relief by virtue of interim orders. Keeping in view this legal situation and with a view that injustice is not caused to the petitioners they were allowed to continue only for a week but the Court while passing the interim orders was very much cautious about the complicacy which may arise after the decision of writ petition. The petitioner-appellants were knowing the fate of such study if they ultimately fail to establish that Uttar Madhyama is recognised by the State Government and the Rajasthan/Jodhpur University. For that they themselves are re sponsible and they cannot blame anyone. Therefore, merely on the basis of selection which was made provisional and the continuance in the course on the strength of interim orders with certain conditions, it cannot be said that the petitioner-appellants were entitled to get certificate/diploma. (14). For that they themselves are re sponsible and they cannot blame anyone. Therefore, merely on the basis of selection which was made provisional and the continuance in the course on the strength of interim orders with certain conditions, it cannot be said that the petitioner-appellants were entitled to get certificate/diploma. (14). So far as the case law cited by the counsel for the peti tioner-appellants is concerned, the learned Single Judge has already dealt them in detail and we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that they are not applicable to the facts of present case as it is needless to state that any concession granted under the special facts and circumstances of another case will not give a right to the petitioner-appellants to seek relief particularly when they are not eligible and fulfill the requisite minimum qualification. Thus, there is no error or illegality in the order of learned Single Judge. We may refer some decisions in this respect. In St. Johns Teacher Training Institute (For Women) Etc. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (1) their lordships of the Supreme Court has held that in the writ petitions filed by unrecognised or temporarily recognised institutions along with a prayer for interim orders to allow students of such mstitutions to appear in the examinations pending disposal of the case, courts shoud not pass such interim orders and even where such interim orders were passed allowing students to write the examination and who have passed the examination, the Court cannot grant relief for issue of certificates. This court also in number of cases have taken the view that on the basis of interim order, relief cannot be granted on equitable grounds if writ petition ultimately fails. In Smt. Manju Lata Vs. Hitkari cooperative Shiksha Mahila Mahavidhyalaya (2) the petitioners was not eligible for admission in B.Ed. Course but given admission by college and studied regularly. She was not allowed to appear in the examination but under the interim order of the Court she took the examination. A Division Bench of this Court held that appearance of the petitioner in examination under orders of Court will not confer any right on petitioner. In Dr. H.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Course but given admission by college and studied regularly. She was not allowed to appear in the examination but under the interim order of the Court she took the examination. A Division Bench of this Court held that appearance of the petitioner in examination under orders of Court will not confer any right on petitioner. In Dr. H.C. Chaturvedi Vs. State (3) under the order of the Court the appellant was provisionally admitted and it was urged that he wasted his valuable time, the learned Judges held that the appel-lant was not entitled to any relief on equitable grounds on the basis of interim orders of admission passed by the Court. In Ashok Kumar Aseri Vs. University of Jodhpur decided on 08.10.1993(4), also this Court has taken the same view. In Mahesh Chand Ameta Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.C.W.petitkm No. 3695/91) decided on 13.12.1991 the incumbent was holding a certificate of Shiksha Shashtri from Varanasey Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalaya (the same Institute with which we are concerned presently) and obtained appointment on the post of Teacher. This Court has held that a perusal of the letter of the Government of Rajasthan clearly transpires that the degrees obtained by the petitioner is not a recognised one and he is not entitled for employment on the basis of that degree in Rajathan. Likewise in Varanasey Sanskrit Sangh Vs. State (S.B.C.W. petion No. 379/91) decided on 04.2.92 it has been held that Varanasey Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalaya, Varanashi is not recognised institute and as such no appointment can be given on the basis of this degree awarded by the institution which is unrecognised. Similarly in Shanker Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B.C.W. Petition No. 387/94) decided on 17.2.94 the incumbent was holding B.Ed. degree from Maithili University (Maithili Vishwa Vidhyapitb), Darbhanga and was appointed as Teacher. Later on after serving for more than 4 years he was terminated from service, as the Government had declared that Maithili Vishwavidhyapith, Darbhanga is not a University and the degrees and diplomas awarded by it are not recognised. The learned Single Judge has observed that in my opinion persons who have secured employment on the basis of the degrees which are forged and which cannot, by any stretch of imagination be treated as recognised, cannot claim indulgence of getting relief under Article 226. The learned Single Judge has observed that in my opinion persons who have secured employment on the basis of the degrees which are forged and which cannot, by any stretch of imagination be treated as recognised, cannot claim indulgence of getting relief under Article 226. Even though they may have been confirmed in service and they may have served for some years, they are not entitled to relief from this Court under Article 226. Grant of relief to the petitioners would amount to perpetuation of the illegality which had been committed at the time of giving appointment to them. Reference may also be made to Rameshwarlal Vs. Panchayat Samiti, Badisadari (S.B.C.W.Peti-tion No. 5495/92 decided on 27.5.1994 and Vinod Kumar Vs. State (S.BC.W. Petition No 1596/94) decided on 18.5.94 and Ramveer Singh Vs. Board of Secondary Education Rajas than, Ajmer (S.B.C.W.Petition No 984/91) decided on 20.9.91. (15). In view of what we have discussed above, we dont find any illegality or error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting any interference by us in these special appeals. (16). Accordingly, these two special appeals have no force any they are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.