ORDER : 1. Vide this judgment above mentioned appeals would be disposed of, as they involve common question of law. 2. Appellants have challenged the judgments passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30.3.2012, 6.11.2012 and 19.9.2016. The writ petitions filed by the appellants had arisen out of advertisements dated 7.7.2008, 25.5.2011, 10.7.2013 and Corrigendum issued on 30.8.2013. Vide the said advertisements, applications were invited for filling up posts of Lab Technician, Assistant Radiographer and Laboratory Assistant. Applicants were required to have all the necessary qualifications as per the Advertisements. Appellants had applied for appointment in pursuance to the advertisements-in-question. 3. Admittedly, all the appellants had obtained diploma through distance education mode. Appellants were denied appointment on the ground that the Universities from where they had obtained diploma were not recognized by the State. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the present case stands covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. vs. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors., (2018) 1 SCC 468 . Vide the said decision, the view taken by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh was accepted. Before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, a writ petition had been filed by Kartar Singh by way of Public Interest Litigation alleging that certain deemed Universities such as JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur; Vinayak Mission Research Foundation, Tamil Nadu; IASE Deemed University Rajasthan had set up “off-campus centres” and “study centres” in violation of the Regulations framed by the UGC and very said study centre, at times was operating for more than one deemed to be University, and these study centres completely lacked infrastructure and facilities for courses in Engineering and that the programmes through distance education mode were illegal and without approval. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court vide order dated 6.11.2012. It was held that the degrees awarded by such deemed to be universities is an illegal act and such illegality cannot be removed or cured by the actions of either by Commission or DEC. Thus, the degrees awarded by JRN Rajasthan University etc by way of distance education mode were held to be illegal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the order passed by the High Court dated 6.11.2012. Thus, the degrees awarded by JRN Rajasthan University etc by way of distance education mode were held to be illegal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the order passed by the High Court dated 6.11.2012. Appellants had completed diploma course from the deemed Universities and hence, diploma conferred upon the appellants by the JRN Rajasthan University etc have no value in the eyes of law. 5. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellants have also fairly conceded that the controversy involved in the present case is covered by the decision given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra). Learned counsel for the appellants have further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while disposing of the case had directed All India Council of Technical Education (for short ‘AICTE’) to devise some modality within one month from the date of judgment to conduct appropriate test both in written examination as well as practicals for the students concerned admitted during the academic sessions 2001-2005 to enable them to have their ability tested by the authorities competent in that behalf. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that now Para Medical Council has come into force and the appellants are also ready to have their ability tested before the competent authority. Similar directions be issued to ask the Para Medical Council to conduct an examination to test the ability of the appellants. 7. Learned State Counsel has submitted that so far as the appellants are concerned, their case is on a different footing. So far appellants have not been conferred any benefit in terms of the diploma held by them. Hence, the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra) could not be passed in the present case. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, degree holders were already in service with various Corporations/Departments. Learned State Counsel has further submitted that the issue had come up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a contempt petition filed by Ashok Kumar & Ors. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, degree holders were already in service with various Corporations/Departments. Learned State Counsel has further submitted that the issue had come up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a contempt petition filed by Ashok Kumar & Ors. vs. Depinder Singh Dhesi & Ors, (2019) 8 SCC 280 , and it has been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the intent while passing the directions in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra) was to restore the status quo ante and not to confer any additional advantage by the judgment and the clarification order. Moreover, appellants lacked essential qualification as per the advertisements in question. The universities from where the appellants had done their diploma course through distance learning mode were not recognized by the State. 8. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) as under:- “14. It was, therefore, clear that the candidates who, on the strength of such Degrees awarded through Distance Education Mode, had attained a particular level in their career or were enjoying certain benefits as on the date of the Judgment and if they pass the examination, those benefits would stand restored. If the candidates could clear the examination in the first attempt itself, there would not even be any break in continuous enjoyment of those benefits or facilities. The idea was, candidates should not stand deprived of the status that they were enjoying as on the day of the Judgment provided the candidates could prove their worth and ability. 15. But if, the candidates concerned had not attained any particular status, as on the date when the Judgment was passed, the width of directions was not to confer any additional advantage which was not even enjoyed as on the date. It was not the idea to hold the candidates to be entitled to certain additional benefits which the candidates were, as a matter of fact, not even enjoying on the date of the judgment. If the degrees stood restored in terms of the directions in the Judgment and the Order, the candidates would certainly be eligible to such entitlements as are available in accordance with law, but “restoration” would only be of those benefits, which they were enjoying as on the date of the Judgment. If the degrees stood restored in terms of the directions in the Judgment and the Order, the candidates would certainly be eligible to such entitlements as are available in accordance with law, but “restoration” would only be of those benefits, which they were enjoying as on the date of the Judgment. In short, the intent was to restore status quo ante and not to confer any additional advantage by the Judgment and the Order. 16. In the present case serious objection has been raised on behalf of the Department that the candidates concerned had enrolled themselves in courses leading to Degrees in Engineering through Distance Education Mode without express permission of the Department and/or the Department did not recognise the Degrees in Engineering awarded through Distance Education Mode or that the candidates concerned were not granted any study leave to pursue such courses. If the Degrees were so obtained in violation of the norms and parameters laid down by the Department concerned, the matter assumes completely different complexion. The directions issued by this Court in the Judgment and the order never directed to confer such advantages which the candidates were otherwise not enjoying on the date when the Judgment and clarificatory Order were passed. If there was serious infirmity in the Degrees so obtained by the candidates, the matter ought to be sorted out either through representation or through properly instituted challenge in that behalf. If the promotion was not granted and was not being enjoyed as on the day when the judgment was passed, there was no violation of any direction issued by this Court. As is evident, the representations made by the Contempt Petitioner claimed conferral of certain status and benefits which they were not enjoying earlier. If there be any grievance on that front, the entitlement needs to be established in proceedings other than a Contempt Petition.” 9. Thus, in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra), the directions sought by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be granted in the present case. 10. Consequently, all the appeals stand dismissed.