ORDER : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: (i) That the respondent council may kindly be directed to produce the letter whereby the candidature of the petitioner for registration with the council was rejected alongwith all the other relevant records. (ii) That the action of the respondent council in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for registration may kindly be set aside as illegal and arbitrary. (iii) That the respondent council may kindly be directed to issue the registration certificate in favour of the petitioner by considering her qualifications as duly acquired from recognized board of school education & university. 2. It is averred by the petitioner that she has acquired +2 in Science from a school in Rajgarh, Sirmour though affiliated to Board of School Education, New Delhi. Thereafter, in the year, 2011, the petitioner registered as student with H. P. University for further studies and in the year, 2016 has qualified B.Sc Medical Lab Technician from NIMS Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. In the year, 2018 the petitioner got registered as a Medical Lab Technician with the Para Medical Council of Punjab and, thereafter in the year, 2020 petitioner submitted her documents for registration with the H.P. Para Medical Council as a Medical Lab Technician, but the same was refused, thereby, dis-entitling her from participating in the counselling for 161 posts of Medical Lab Technician held on 02.11.2020 in the Department of Health and Family Welfare. 4. The action of the respondents has been assailed primarily on the ground that since the petitioner was duly qualified and possessing +2 certificate from a recognized Board of Higher Secondary Education, New Delhi and B.Sc Medical Lab Technician from a recognised university, she could not have been denied participation in the counselling for 161 posts of Medical Lab Technician. 5. Respondents have contested the petition by filing reply wherein it has been averred that the Himachal Pradesh Para Medical Council was established in the State of Himachal Pradesh as per Act, 2003 (for short 'Act'). 5. Respondents have contested the petition by filing reply wherein it has been averred that the Himachal Pradesh Para Medical Council was established in the State of Himachal Pradesh as per Act, 2003 (for short 'Act'). The Council has been established to regulate the practice by Para Medical practitioner of the institution and the only purpose of Para Medical Council is to register the recognized Para Medical qualification, a degree, diploma or certificate in any Para Medical qualifications, granted by any university established by law or any other institutions recognized by the State of Himachal Pradesh in this behalf. The Act has been passed to ensure that no Para Medical Institute is run within the territorial limit of State Government without permission which would secure and protect interest of students, who were to study or obtain training from the institute. 6. Thereafter, the provisions of Section 38 of the Act have been quoted and reads as under:- 38.(1) No person shall be registered on the State Register as Para-Registration, medical practitioner unless he possesses a recognized qualification and renewal has not paid such fee, as may be prescribed and different fee many and State be prescribed for different qualifications but it shall not exceed one thousand rupees and the registration shall be valid for a period of three years. (2) The Council shall cause to be maintained a State Register of para-medical practitioners in such form, as may be prescribed, by regulations. (3) The Register shall be deemed to be public document within the 1 meaning of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (4) Every registered paramedical practitioner registered under sub-section (1) shall renew his registration after every three years on payment of such fee as may be prescribed. 7. It is further averred that eligible candidates are registered as para medical practitioner as required under sub section 1 of Section 38 of the Act and authorized to practice after they are found to have fulfilled the requirements of the Act as well as the different notifications issued by the State Government from time to time. As regards the instant case, it is averred that the petitioner has done +2 examination from the Board of Higher Education, Delhi, and at the time of submission of the documents she was asked to brought the recognition certificate with respect to the education qualification. As regards the instant case, it is averred that the petitioner has done +2 examination from the Board of Higher Education, Delhi, and at the time of submission of the documents she was asked to brought the recognition certificate with respect to the education qualification. Since the petitioner has done +2 from Board of Higher Secondary Education, New Delhi, therefore, respondents sent a letter dated 07.09.2020, to the Secretary Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education regarding the verification of the Board. 8. On 03.10.2020, respondents received a response wherein it was informed that any examination conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, is not considered valid for admission to higher education as it is not equivalent to any examination conducted by the H.P. Board of School Education. In view of this clarification, the name of the petitioner was not registered. 9. It is also averred that apart from the opinion gathered from the internet the name of the Board from which the petitioner had done +2 examination has not been reflected/mentioned as per the list of recognized board in India. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 10. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even though the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi may be fake and fraudulent but the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the same and rather the State of Himachal Pradesh should conduct a special examination to save the future of the affected students like the petitioner. 11. In support of such contention, reliance is placed on the learned Single Judge Judgment of the High Court of Meghalaya in WP(C) No. 188 of 2016, titled as Kalpataru Academy & ors. vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors. and the judgment of the learned Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.Spl. Appl. Writ No. 225 of 2020, titled as Pratap Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 12. vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors. and the judgment of the learned Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.Spl. Appl. Writ No. 225 of 2020, titled as Pratap Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 12. We are not inclined to agree much less concede to the contentions raised by the petitioner, reason being that an identical issue regarding the validity of the certificate issued by the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi (fake organization) came up before the learned Division Bench of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 18812 of 2012, Pankaj Kumar vs. The Union of India and Ors and CWJC No. 26 of 2018, titled as Vivek Kumar vs. The Union of India and Ors., wherein it was observed as under:- "The core issue is that the so called certificate akin to matriculation obtained by this petitioner from the Board of Higher Secondary Education, New Delhi (a fake organization) can form the basis for begetting employment in the Postal Department. Since this is not an educational institution but a fraudulent organization selling fake certificates, therefore, if this fact is not disputed and the educational qualification of the present petitioner is not a matter of argument then any employment obtained by him on the basis of the said certificate cannot beget him the benefit of continuance in service. The Court will advise the petitioner to acquire knowledge instead of buying knowledge from such institutions. No interference is warranted with the order of the Tribunal. Writ is dismissed." 13. These matters were thereafter carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4171 of 2019 and analogous cases, which were disposed of by order dated 27.09.2019 in the following terms : - "Notice was issued in the matter so that the concerned authorities could put on record the circumstances in which communication dated 26.4.2013 was issued and explain the status with regard to "Board of Higher Secondary Education". Affidavits have thereafter been filed on behalf of the concerned authorities which indicates that the concerned "Board of Higher Secondary Education" is not recognized at all; and that the documents appended to the SLPs were not the correct copies of the originals. Nor were those documents existing on the concerned files. Affidavits have thereafter been filed on behalf of the concerned authorities which indicates that the concerned "Board of Higher Secondary Education" is not recognized at all; and that the documents appended to the SLPs were not the correct copies of the originals. Nor were those documents existing on the concerned files. We had therefore, called upon Union of India to publish an advertisement in the newspapers and put in the public domain that the concerned Board was not recognized at all and to warn the entire student community. The advertisement to that effect has been issued and affidavits of compliance have also been filed. In the circumstances, nothing further need be done in the matter. The special leave petitions are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of." 14. The advertisement as referred in the aforesaid order is available on the public domain and reads as under:- The Ministry of Human Resource and Development wishes to inform the general public that it has come to the notice of Ministry of HRD that one entity operating in the name of “Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi” is claiming to be a recognised Board of Education by this Ministry vide letter No. 1812/2009/SKT-1 dated 29/06/2009 and D.O. letter No. 3-5/2013/Sch.3 dated the 26th April, 2013. On scrutiny of the relevant records of this Ministry, it has been found that no such letters have ever been issued by this Ministry in favour of so called Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi. Both these letters are, therefore, completely forged and fabricated. Further, it is abundantly clarified that No letters, whatsoever, have ever been issued by this Ministry recognising the said entity i.e. Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi. The said entity i.e. Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi stands dissolved w.e.f. 01.07.1962 vide Directorate of Education Delhi Administration Resolution’s No. F.32(10)/62-Edn. dated 30.06.1962. Therefore, if any other document(s) is/are produced by the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi in relation to its recognition, then the same may be deemed to be fake and the veracity of the documents may first be got confirmed from the concerned organisation/Ministry. The General Public, all students, their parents and all other stakeholders are, therefore, advised to take note of the above facts and act accordingly. 15. The General Public, all students, their parents and all other stakeholders are, therefore, advised to take note of the above facts and act accordingly. 15. Once the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, is found to be a fake and fraudulent organisation selling certificates, therefore, the students who have obtained certificates from such Board cannot be shown any indulgence save and except in extreme exceptional cases, which is not the fact situation obtaining in the instant case. 16. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Sirmaur where is no dearth of schools or even opportunities to appear in +2 examination as a private candidate from a recognised Board/Institute. Why would then the petitioner still opt to appear for examination which is not affiliated to the H.P. Board of School Education or any other recognised institute and appeared in the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi? 17. The answer does not require any rocket science or solomon wisdom. As repeatedly held by the Courts in India, this Board i.e. Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi is a fake and fraudulent organisation selling fake degrees. The certificates and degrees have to be acquired through lawful process and cannot be made a 'purchasable commodity'. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. Parties are left to bear their own costs.