JUDGMENT 1. - As agreed by all the parties writ petitions as well contempt petition have been finally heard and disposed of. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the above writ petitions, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. For the convenience the facts of SBCWP No. 3228/90 are being considered. It is alleged that the petitioners after passing Bihar Intermediate Examination, Patna, applied for admission in General Nursing Course to be commenced from April, 1996, in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 27.2.96 published in the 'Rajasthan Patrika' on 7.396 issued by the respondent for various places. It is also alleged that the petitioner who preferred for Sikar District was called for interviews held on 25.7.96, despite that he was meritorious his name was not found in the list of interviews. He was intimated by verbal order that the qualification acquired by him is not recognised by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. Hence he filed this writ petition. 3. In pursuance of the show cause notice, reply was filed. It is stated that the examination conducted by Bihar Intermediate Council was not recognised as equivalent to Sec. Higher Secondary Examination of the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. The documents produced from Annex-1 to Annex-5 are not reliable, even to show that academic qualification acquired by the petitioner prior to 7.10.95 were eligible to be called for interviews. It is also stated that document Annex-7 'Anudeshika' June, 1994, reveals that only Bihar Intermediate Council, Amrapali, Bale Road, Patna, at Item No. 6 is recognised only (as per Annex-6) and not from Bihar Intermediate Education Council from where the petitioner has obtained the alleged certificate Annex-6. It is also stated that the candidates who secured 33% marks with English in the Examination conducted by Bihar Intermediate Council, Amrapali, Patna is recognised (Ex. A/7), which is clear from Annex-R/3 and R/4. It is also stated that the joint writ petition is not maintainable. It is further stated that the writ petition is also not maintainable for non-joinder and misjoinder of the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only qualification of this training/course as per advertisement is 1st Year TDC in old scheme or Sr. It is also stated that the joint writ petition is not maintainable. It is further stated that the writ petition is also not maintainable for non-joinder and misjoinder of the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only qualification of this training/course as per advertisement is 1st Year TDC in old scheme or Sr. Higher Secondary 10 + 2 scheme with Physics, Chemistry and Maths which is equivalent but despite that respondents have illegally refused on the basis of so-called do-recognition vide order dated 7.10.95 (Annex-6). It is alleged that earlier years admission were given, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for admission. Counsel has relied on the identical matter of Akhil Mishra v. Secretary, Department of College Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur, SBCWP No. 3271/95 decided on 31.8.95 on the basis of SBCWP No. 1538/95 decided on 3.5.95, Mahendra Kumar Achra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. . 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that candidates who have obtained lesser marks after passing secondary examination migrated to Bihar even without producing migration certificate and obtained Intermediate Certificate, which was ultimately de-recognised, by the Board of Secondary Education vide order dated 7.10.95. It is also argued that they are two different institutions, which is clear from Annex-R/4 dated 15.3.% and, therefore, now the petitioner cannot take advantage. They have been rightly denied admission. He further submits that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the case of State v. Ajay Kumar, DBCWP No. 439/95 as in that matter SLP (Civil) No. 27(i65/95 has already been admitted and in Mahendra Kumar's case (CW No. 50-5/95) SLP (Civil) No. 5548/95 has been filed wherein proceedings have been stayed vide order dated 12.1.97. The contempt proceedings have also been stayed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 5.1.96 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, so also the case law. 7. It is well settled that recognition of a particular examination/degree/ diploma outside the State and its equivalence is within the domain of the concerning Board or University. being expert in the matter, this Court generally does not interfere in such matters unless the recognition or dc-recognition so made, is illegal and mala fide. As the. required qualification has been de-recognised on 7.10.95, and admittedly the petitioner is not eligible for admission. being expert in the matter, this Court generally does not interfere in such matters unless the recognition or dc-recognition so made, is illegal and mala fide. As the. required qualification has been de-recognised on 7.10.95, and admittedly the petitioner is not eligible for admission. In the instant case, nothing has been placed on record to show how the de-recognition is without jurisdiction and illegal. 8. So also the petitioner has not been able to show any illegality or mala fide on the post of the authorities concerned. Admittedly, at the point of time the institution was not recognised by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, which was the required condition as per the advertisement. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners are entitled for any relief, as prayed for. That apart the decision rendered to Akhil Mishra's case is also not helpful in view of the stay granted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. 9. In view of the matter, the petitioner cannot take advantage of so called corrigendum as equivalence with the examination passed by the Board of Secondary Education Ajmer, Rajasthan, has been dc-recognised on the basis of the report by the Committee appointed by the State Govt. vide order dated 22.10.1995, and further vide impugned order dated 7.10.1995 (7.10.1995). 10. The D.B. decision relied on by the petitioner in State v. Shivkaran, DBC Spl. Appeal No. 6/90 decided on 29.4.93 is not helpful as in that case it was held that de-recognition of qualification will not take away the right of candidate who is already in service. 11. Whereas in the present case, petitioner wants admission on the basis of the qualification which is not recognised at that point of time. 12. A reference can be made to the decision of the Apex Court reported in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. State of Karnataka, 1980 SCC (Suppl.) 740 and the case of the Chancellor & another etc. v. Dr. Bijayanandakar & ors., 1993 JT (6) SC 473 , wherein it has been held that whether a candidate fulfil the requisite qualification or not is a matter which should be entire within the jurisdiction of the Education Department. 13. Accordingly, these writ petitions have no force and they are hereby dismissed, with no order as to cost. 14. v. Dr. Bijayanandakar & ors., 1993 JT (6) SC 473 , wherein it has been held that whether a candidate fulfil the requisite qualification or not is a matter which should be entire within the jurisdiction of the Education Department. 13. Accordingly, these writ petitions have no force and they are hereby dismissed, with no order as to cost. 14. The contempt petition in which no notice has been issued as yet, is also dismissed.Writ Petition dismissed - Contempt petition also dismissed. *******