JUDGMENT Rajendra Menon, J. Challenging the action of the respondent/University in not regularising admission of the petitioner in B.Sc. Nursing Course and withholding the result of the 4th year examination undertaken by the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Earlier, when the result of the petitioner for the course in question was withheld, petitioner filed W.P. No. 5488/2010 before this Court. The petition was disposed of directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to re-examine the matter and after considering the qualifying examination, i.e., Pre-University Course undertaken by the petitioner from the Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, take a decision. After the aforesaid order was passed, it seems that nothing was done and, therefore, Contempt Case No. 417/2011 was filed, however, during the pendency of the contempt application by the impugned orders dated 4-4-2011 and 17-7-2011. claim of the petitioner has been rejected, i.e., Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-5 respectively, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Facts in brief, go to show that the petitioner was admitted to the B.Sc. Nursing Course by the Jabalpur Institute of Nursing Sciences/respondent No. 3, for admission to the said course, a candidate should have passed, 12th Class under the 10 + 2 examination system recognised by the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Pradesh or any other equivalent course. As the Pre-University Course Examination, 2005 undertaken by the petitioner from the Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, is said to be not a recognised, claim of the petitioner is rejected and, therefore, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Smt. Bohre, learned Counsel takes us through the documents and material available on record, refers to the orders passed and invites our attention to a communication made by the Government of India on 17th of February, 2004 to the Vice Chancellor, Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, which is reproduced in the order passed by this Court on 27-1-2011 in W.P. No. 5488/2010 and says that when the Government of India has approved the course of the said Vidyapeeth, (hen the University cannot deny admission to the petitioner for the course in question. 5. Contending that the petitioner was admitted to the course after due verification, no objections were raised and now after a period of three years such an objection is raised, learned Counsel tried to emphasise that the action of the respondents is unsustainable. 5. Contending that the petitioner was admitted to the course after due verification, no objections were raised and now after a period of three years such an objection is raised, learned Counsel tried to emphasise that the action of the respondents is unsustainable. By referring to the University handbook issued by the Association of Indian Universities (Annexure P-10) and the brochure of Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth available at Page 39, learned Counsel tried to emphasise that the certificate and the course undertaken by the petitioner from the said Vidyapeeth is valid and placing reliance on documents (Annexure P-7), it is argued that the Director of Distance Education of Udaipur has also certified that the course is recognised. Learned Counsel submits that the respondent/University is denying benefit to the petitioner on improper consideration. 6. Respondents have refuted the aforesaid and it is their case that the course undertaken by the petitioner, i.e., Pre-University Course from the Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth is not a recognised nor is equivalent to 10 + 2 Education nor approved by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh and, therefore, in denying admission to the petitioner on such consideration, it is said that the University has not committed any error. 7. Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned Counsel referred to the manner in which the petitioner was admitted to the B.Sc. Nursing Course by the Jabalpur Institute of Nursing Science and Research, argued that according to the provisions of Clause 4, sub-clause (3) of Ordinance No. 8 (Annexure R-5), admission to the institute is undertaken on the basis of certificate produced and verification done by the Principal of the Institute and in this case, petitioner was admitted to the institute when his mother was Principal of the Institute. His mother, Smt. Rashmi Yadav certified him to be eligible for the admission to the course and the certificate issued by the Institute to be correct vide Annexure R-7 the University proceed in the matter on the basis that this is correct. But on further investigation, when it was found that the course undertaken by the petitioner from the Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth in question is not recognised by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh or the All India Association for Universities, the impugned action is taken. 8. But on further investigation, when it was found that the course undertaken by the petitioner from the Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth in question is not recognised by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh or the All India Association for Universities, the impugned action is taken. 8. Shri P.K. Kaurav referred to the eligibility of affiliation equivalent booklet issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh and documents issued by the All India Association of Universities and the communication by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India to say that in none of these documents, there is anything to see or say that the Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, from where the petitioner has acquired the qualification of Pre-University is recognised and, therefore, Shri Kaurav submits that as the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria for admission to the B.Sc. Nursing Course from a recognised University, the University has not committed any error in rejecting his case. In support of the aforesaid contention, he invites our attention to the judgment in the case of Slate of Rajasthan and others v. Lata Aran, (2002) 6 SCC 252 . and the observations made in Paras 11, 12 and 13 thereof to say that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and considered the rival contentions. For admission to a B.Sc. Nursing Course, according to the rules, a candidate has to pass a qualifying examination, i.e., High School or Higher Secondary 10 + 2 system of Education, which is approved by the State of M.P. Petitioner has passed a Pre-University Course Examination conducted by the Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, Rajasthan and, therefore, the question in this petition is as to whether Pre-University Course Examination conducted by the Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth hereinafter referred to as "Rajasthan Vidyapeeth", is a recognised course equivalent to the 10 + 2 qualifying examination approved in the State of M.P. To say that this course is recognised, petitioner's Counsel places reliance on the following material: First is the communication made by the Government of India in its letter dated 17th of February, 2004, which is reproduced in the order-sheet dated 27-1-2011 passed in W.P. No. 5488/2010. 10. 10. A perusal of the letter goes to show that the Government of India has recognised certain courses conducted by the Universities established under the Acts of Parliament or State Legislature and which are institutes deemed to be universities under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 for the purpose of employment under the Central Government. This is a general communication by a Desk Officer of the Government of India in the matter of recognising the degrees granted by the deemed University established by the Act of Parliament or the State Legislature for the purpose of employment under Central Government. This document in no way helps the petitioner in canvassing his case. The second document is booklet said to have been issued by the Association of Indian Universities, i.e., Annexure P-10. 11. Even though the first page of Annexure P-10 refers to the University handbook but the subsequent document thereof is not a part of the handbook, it is only a publication of the Rajasthan Vidyapeeth. That apart, other documents (Annexures P-11 and P-12) are nothing but the communication of the Directorate of Distance Education to the Rajasthan Vidyapeeth itself and based on these documents, claim of the petitioner cannot be assessed, on the contrary, the documents filed by the respondent are communication made by the Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi (Annexure R-9) and in the communication made by the association, a list of courses conducted by the various Boards throughout the India are indicated, which are recognised, so far as the State of Rajasthan is concerned, only two Boards have been recognised, they are the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur Road. Ajmer and the Rajasthan State Open School, Jaipur Road, Jhalana Doongri. In this list prepared by the Association of Indian Universities, name of Rajasthan Vidyapeeth is not available. Similarly, Annexure R-16 is a list of institutes or Boards recognised for the purpose of imparting education under the 10 + 2 system of education issued by the Government of India in the Department of Higher Education and with regard to the State of Rajasthan. In this list only the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education Ajmer is recognised. Similarly, Annexure R-16 is a list of institutes or Boards recognised for the purpose of imparting education under the 10 + 2 system of education issued by the Government of India in the Department of Higher Education and with regard to the State of Rajasthan. In this list only the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education Ajmer is recognised. Similarly, Board of Secondary Education, M.P., Bhopal has also issued a eligibility/affiliation/equivalency booklet indicating the particulars of the Boards and institutes through out the country, which are recognised by Board equivalent to the Higher Secondary Certificate examination conducted by the M.P. Board. At Page 14 of this booklet, the Board/Institutes in the State of Rajasthan are indicated. In the State of Rajasthan. following six institutes are said to be recognised or equivalent to the examinations conducted by the M.P. Board and in this also, Rajasthan Vidyapeeth is not indicated:- “(1) The High School Examination/Secondary School Examination of the Board of Secondary Examination Rajasthan. Jaipur/Ajmer-305001. (2) The High School Examination of the Central Board of Secondary Education. Ajmer. (3) Praveshika Examination of the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer, if passed with English as a subject. (4) High School Examination of Rajputana University, Jaipur. (5) High School Examination of University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. (6) Secondary School Certificate Examination of Banasthali Vidyapeeth, Banasthali Rajasthan. 12. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the Institute from which the petitioner has acquired the qualification of Pre-University is neither recognised nor indicated in the list available with Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh nor the All India Universities Association. There is no material available on record to say that the institute namely. Rajasthan Vidyapeeth is a recognised institute on the contrary, from the material available on record, it seems to be a non-recognised institute and, therefore, if it is a non-recognised institute, the induction and admission of the petitioner to the course then becomes illegal. Once the basic qualification acquired by the petitioner for admission to the course is found to be lacking, no interference can be made by this Court in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Lata Arun (supra). 13. Once the basic qualification acquired by the petitioner for admission to the course is found to be lacking, no interference can be made by this Court in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Lata Arun (supra). 13. That apart, contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was admitted to the course and at that point of time, no objection was raised is concerned, admission of the petitioner is on the basis of the verification and certification done by the institute, where the petitioner's mother was Principal and the documents available on record particularly Annexure R-7 goes to show that the petitioner's mother certified petitioner's qualification and the University accepting the same permitted the petitioner to prosecute in the course but when the correct fact came to the notice of the University, the mistake is corrected, therefore, petitioner cannot take advantage of the irregularity which occurred with the help of his mother and now when the documents and material available on record goes to show that the petitioner was admitted in an illegal manner and was not eligible for admission to the course in question in accordance with the rules applicable in the State of M.P., on the sympathetic consideration, we are not inclined to interfere into the matter. For prosecuting studies in a particular course, a candidate should fulfill all the eligibility criteria and if eligibility criteria is not fulfilled, ignoring the same, no indulgence can be made by this Court. 14. Accordingly, finding the petitioner to be not qualified for seeking admission to the course in question and for the grounds and reasons as indicated hereinabove, we see no reason to interfere into the matter. 15. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.