JUDGMENT 1. - In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the letter dated, March 29, 1993 written by the Registrar, Rajasthan Nursing Council, Jaipur, to the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Kota and allow her to appear in Health Workers (F) ensuing examination alongwith all other candidates of her batch and to declare her result of examination. 2. There is no dispute that minimum educational requirement to get admission for training of Health Workers course is High School of the Central Board of Secondary Education or of recognised public examination. The petitioner has put her claim for having passed High School Examination from the Central Board of Higher Education, New Delhi, but this institution is not a recognised institution as is cleared by the press note of the Government of India, Ministry of Education and Culture (Department of Education) dated, 11th October, 1982, which is reproduced as under : "CENTRAL BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION NEW DELHI & CENTRAL BOARD OF HIGH EDUCATION A CLARIFICATIONThe Ministry of Education and Culture would like to clarify that the so-called "Central Board of Higher Education" located at Vashpati Bhawan, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and the 'Central Board of High Education" located at East Patel Nagar, New Delhi are not institutions recognised by the Govt.The public should not be misled by the name of these private institutions run by individuals which has no connection either with the Director of Education, Delhi or with the Ministry of Education and Culture. These Boards should not be mistaken for the Central Board of Secondary Education, 17-B, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi which is a Government recognised examining body.This clarification is being issued in response to a number of enquiries from individuals and institutions about the status of the two so called Board and about validity of the examinations conducted by them." 3. The respondents in their return have taken the plea that the Central Board of Higher Education New Delhi, is not a recognised institution and in fact, it is a fake institution. The certificate produced by the petitioner for her eligibility to get admission is not valid to make her eligible for the training. The respondents in their return have taken the plea that the Central Board of Higher Education New Delhi, is not a recognised institution and in fact, it is a fake institution. The certificate produced by the petitioner for her eligibility to get admission is not valid to make her eligible for the training. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1058 of 1992, Smt. Sharda Mishra V. State of Rajasthan and others, decided on 7.10.92 , an identical question was involved, as to whether the qualification of High School Examination from the Central Board of Higher Education, New Delhi was recognised or not for getting admission in the training course and whether on the basis of a certificate issued by such institution, the petitioner was entitled to get admission ? In that case, it was held as under: "Thus, it will be seen that there is material that the aforesaid Central Board of High Education which granted certificate to the petitioner is not recognised institution and the certificate of the petitioner is not recognised as equivalent to the High School Examination. It will be seen from a perusal of the Syllabi and Regulations for the courses of studies for Auxiliary Nurse Midwife that so far as the requirement of entrance to the training course is concerned, the minimum educational qualification shall be 10th class of Central Board of Secondary Education or a recognised equivalent public examination. It can, therefore, be said that the petitioner was not eligible for admission to the training course. As said earlier, the question of eligibility of the petitioner was not examined by the respondent No. 4 at the time of her admission and therefore, the respondent No. 4 cannot be estopped from saying that the petitioner is not eligible to appear in the examination merely because she was given admission in training course by a committee of which none from the respondent No. 4 or their representative was at all member." The present case is fully covered by the said judgment and I do not find any ground to take a different view.Consequently, the writ petition has no merit and it is hereby dismissed. However, costs made easy in the facts and circumstances of the case.Petition dismissed. *******