JUDGMENT 1. :- The case come up on an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India stating that the petitioners are unqualified and ineligible to hold the post but by misrepresenting continuing in service on account of stay order and, therefore, the interim order dated 7.2.1994 may be vacated and the writ petition may also be dismissed with cost. 2. As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. The petitioners' case is that they have to their credit degree of Shiksha Shastri from the Varanasi Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Varanasi and obtained the same in the years 1988 & 1989 respectively, which was recognised by the Government of Rajasthan. It is alleged that in pursuance of the advertisement No. 3/89 issued by the Zila Parishad, Sirohi, the petitioners applied for third grade teacher. They were appointed for a period of two years on probation vide orders dated 25.10.1989 & 15.11.1989 respectively. It is also alleged that they were confirmed by the order dated 12.11.1992 (Annx.2). The petitioners have further alleged that the State Government withdrew recognition of the said degree vide order dated 30.10.1992 and the Dy. District Education Officer directed vide order dated 21.10.1993 to terminate the services of the petitioners, so being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 4. The writ petition has been filed on 4.2.1994. This Court while admitting the petition, stayed the operation of the termination order dated 21.10.1993 (Annx.3). 5. Reply to the writ petition & rejoinder have also been filed. 6. Mr. Salju, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled for training in view of the Single Bench decision of this Court rendered in S.B.C.W. Petition No. 7530/92 Moinuddin Vs. State decided on 20.8.1993 , wherein this court directed the respondents to evolve a procedure by which the teachers who have been selected regularly by the District Establishment Committee and are not qualified shall get the proper training within a period of three years. He has also submitted that the petitioners have got permission to pursue their study from Kota Open University and also tried to distinguish this case stating that the petitioners themselves became victims of the fraud played on them. 7. Mr. He has also submitted that the petitioners have got permission to pursue their study from Kota Open University and also tried to distinguish this case stating that the petitioners themselves became victims of the fraud played on them. 7. Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs as the petitioner has misstated the facts that they are qualified. He has contended that alleged derecognition of the degree by the Government will not cause and give any right as the alleged degree obtained by the petitioner is not of that institution but obtained from the institution not in existence. He has also contended that this writ petition has been filed in the year 1994 and the learned counsel representing the petitioners was knowing fully well that the controversy involved in this matter has already been set at rest by this Court in a number of writ petitions even decided in the year 1992 and 1993 then in 1994 also and in identical matter filed by the counsel for the petitioner bearing S.B.C.W. Petition No. 6060/93, Jagpal Singh Vs. State decided on 2.8.1995 , it has already been held that the alleged degree in question is fake. He has further urged that by a detailed decision given by the learned Single Judge in S.B.C.W. Petition No. 1596/94 decided on 18.5.1994 (Vinod Kumar Vs. State) wherein it has been held that no such institution is in existence and no such appointment can be given on the basis of the degree which is fake, has been upheld by the Division Bench in D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 372/1994 decided on 3.5.1995, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. He has relied on S.B.C.W. Petition No. 2379/91 decided on 4.2.1992, S.B.C.W. Petition No. 6626/91 decided on 1.12.1992 at Jaipur Bench, S.B.C.W. Petition No. 6698/93 decided on 19.5.93, S.B.C.W. Petition Nos. 2933/93, 2973/93, 2974/93, 3036/93, S.B.C.W. Petition No. 387/94 decided on 17.2.1994 (Shanker lal Vs. State) and Shakur Mohd. Vs. State (S.B.C.W. Petition No. 679/94) decided on 1.4.94. He has submitted that the writ petition may be dismissed with costs. Mr. 2933/93, 2973/93, 2974/93, 3036/93, S.B.C.W. Petition No. 387/94 decided on 17.2.1994 (Shanker lal Vs. State) and Shakur Mohd. Vs. State (S.B.C.W. Petition No. 679/94) decided on 1.4.94. He has submitted that the writ petition may be dismissed with costs. Mr. Singhvi has further submitted that it is clear from the decision referred hereinabove the counsel had full knowledge about the decisions on the point, therefore, the advocates be also held liable as they have not brought true and correct facts before this Court at the time of filing writ petition, so also at the time of obtaining stay order which were within their knowledge. Mr. Singhvi also submitted that Mr. Saluja himself tried to distinguish the decisions of this Court in identical matter bearing No. 6060/93 but his contentions were repelled observing as under : "However, Mr. Saluja try to distinguish this matter by stating that the petitioners themselves are the victims .The fact remains that the document produced by them are found to be forged by the authorities. In fact, criminal prosecution was required to be launched against these persons and it will be open to the non-petitioners if they are so advised. I would have awarded a cost of Rs. 2000/- in this matter while dismissing the petition. But as no cost was awarded in other petitions by my learned brother Shri B.R. Arora, J., therefore, I have not awarded any cost in the matter". Therefore, Mr. Singhvi submitted that the counsel for the petitioner is liable for misconduct and matter may be referred to the Bar Council of Rajasthan for appropriate action and at least cost may be imposed. 8. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the decisions cited Mr. Saluja has not disputed that the alleged degree which was obtained in the year 1988 & 1989 from the institution was not in existence. 9. A perusal of the decisions of this Court show that the controversy involved in this matter has already been set at rest. Admittedly, the degree obtained by the petitioner from Varanasi Sanskrit University is never recognised and no appointment can be given to the petitioners on the basis of the degrees awarded by such an institution which is not even in existence. Admittedly, the degree obtained by the petitioner from Varanasi Sanskrit University is never recognised and no appointment can be given to the petitioners on the basis of the degrees awarded by such an institution which is not even in existence. From the decisions cited before this Court it is clear that even in the decision dated 4.2.1992 rendered in S.B.C.W. Petition No. 2397/91 then in S.B.C.W. Petition No. 6626/91, so also in S.B.C.W. Petition No. 6698/92 decided on 19.5.93 has held that the said institution is a fictitious and fake University. In this view of the matter, persons like the petitioner who obtained appointment on the basis of degrees awarded by a fictitious and fake University, are not entitled for any relief in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction. Reference may be made to D.B. decisions given in Mahendra Singh Vs. Zila Parishad (D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 454/94 decided on the point on 9.1.1994, reported in 1994(1) RLR 721 . 10. So far as the decision rendered in Moinuddin's case (supra) is concerned, that decision has no applicability in the present case as in that case direction was issued in respect of the eligible & qualified teachers who have been selected regularly whereas the present petitioners obtained appointment on the basis of a degree awarded by an institution which is not in existence and recognised. It is worthwhile to mention here that no indulgence can be granted to such persons to perpetuate fraud and illegality while issuing writ. In other words any indulgence granted by this Court will amount to encouraging bogus litigation on the basis on degrees obtained from institutions which are not in existence, which the Court should not. Therefore, the Division Bench decision rendered in D.B.C. Special Appeal No.862/94 decided on 11.7.1995 is also not helpful. Further mere allowing to pursue their study for B.Ed. course subsequently will not give any right to them to continue in service on the basis of ex parte stay order that too when the same controversy has been set at rest by the two Division Benches, as stated above against the petitioners. 11. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the respondents in relation to the conduct of the counsel for the petitioner which was emphatically pressed by Mr. Singhvi, it may be stated that though the Advocate has a privilege to conduct the case on behalf of his client on either side. 11. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the respondents in relation to the conduct of the counsel for the petitioner which was emphatically pressed by Mr. Singhvi, it may be stated that though the Advocate has a privilege to conduct the case on behalf of his client on either side. The counsel can watch and uphold the interest of his client fearlessly by fair and honourable means and for appreciating the controversy his conduct should be above board & upright with dignity and self respect without allowing himself to be a mouth piece of his client only and being an officer of the Court nevertheless it is the duty of the learned counsel that he should bring the true and correct facts before the Court for deciding the real controversy so that justice can be imparted and he cannot absolve himself from his responsibility towards the Court. In the instant case, it cannot be said from the perusal of the judgments that the counsel had no knowledge when they are of the same office and despite that the Senior Counsel did not bring true facts before the Court and obtained ex parte stay order but today the other counsel Mr. Saluja has appeared. It is pertinent to note that he had appeared in S.B.C.W. Petition No. 6060/93 decided on 2.8.1995 and now it is within his knowledge that such a number of decisions are there on the point which were reported. Be that as it may be, he being a young advocate and looking to his future and the Advocate who appeared at the time of stay order is a Senior Advocate and being a Senior Advocate restrictions have already been provided under the Bar Council Rules. Under the circumstances, it would not be proper for this Court to refer the matter to the Bar Council or to impose any cost on the Advocate and the argument of Mr. Singhvi is not accepted but the petitioners who obtained appointment on the basis of forged degree cannot be absolved from their liability to pay cost. In view of the above discussion no indulgence can be granted in the writ petition and the ad-interim order which was obtained after passing decisions of the Division Bench, stands discharged. 12. In the result the writ petition is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. In view of the above discussion no indulgence can be granted in the writ petition and the ad-interim order which was obtained after passing decisions of the Division Bench, stands discharged. 12. In the result the writ petition is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 1000/- on each of the petitioners Omprakash & Ambalal, to be paid to each of the respondents. The application under Article 226(3) stands disposed of.Petition Dismissed With Costs. *******