JAIN, J. - (1.) THESE special under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19. 03. 1993 whereby he has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants by a common order holding that petitioners are not entitled to get the diploma/certificate of the Radiographers Training Course.
(2.) SINCE these appeals are directed against common order of learned Single Judge, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For convenient disposal of these appeals, the facts of D. B. C. Special Appeal No. 306/93 (Dinesh Vs. State) are being taken into consideration. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the appellant Dinesh are that in pursuance of the notification issued by the Director, Medical Health & Family Welfare Services, Rajas than, Jaipur by which applications were invited for Radiographers Training Course, the petitioner-appellant who was holding Uttar Madhyama (Intermediate) Examination, 1990 certificate from the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Varanasi, applied and he was selected but the respondents asked him vide letter dated 4. 12. 1190 to prove that the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwa Vidhalaya, Varanasi is affiliated to any University of the State and that the said examination passed by him is reconognised one otherwise he will not be selected for the course. On his submitting a letter dated 29. 11. 1969 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India recognising Uttar Madhyama Examination (With English) equivalent to Intermediate, he was given provisional admission. Thereafter vide order dt. 26. 4. 1991 the respondents cancelled the admission of both the petitioners. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner-appellants Dinesh and Prabhu Dayal approached this court by means of writ petitions under Article 226. This court vide order dt. 3. 5. 1991 while issuing notice granted ad-interim order allowing them to continue their study on their own risk. Reply to the writ petition was filed stating that the petitioners were only given provisional admission which was subject to recognition of the examination passed by them. It was also stated that the institution viz. Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavid hyalaya is not a recognised by the State Government and rather it is a self styled University which has not been established by a Central or State Act and the petitiners who were not having minimum qualification for selection in the Course were rightly disallowed.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge after considering the material on record as well as the case law cited at Bar dismissed the writ petitions as aforesaid vide order dt. 19. 03. 1993. Hence, the petitioners have preferred these special appeals on 24. 04. 1993. Mr. M. S. Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellants, has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that having granted admission once to the appellants with open eyes it was not open now for the institution to cancel the admission of the appellants and the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the respondents are not estopped by princi-ples of promisory estoppel. He has contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the appellants are not entitled to get the benefit of the admission and of the studies completed by them since they have continued study under the interini orders of this Court and passed the same. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order so also the case law cited at Bar. ;