V. D. GYANI, J. ( 1 ) ALL these petitions involve a common question of law and even on facts they are substantially identical. Therefore, they have been heard together and are decided by a common order. This order shall govern the disposal of all these petitions. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are graduates in Commerce (B. Com ). They applied for admission to B. Ed. Course, for which a Pre-B. Ed. Examination was conducted by respondent no. 2, which the petitioners passed. On passing the said examination, they were directed to join the Lokmanya Tilak Shiksha Mahavidyalaya, Ujjain, which they did. The petitioners paid the required tution-fee etc. ( 3 ) ON 6-12-1988 the petitioners were informed by respondent No. 3 that their admission to the College was cancelled as they had not passed their graduation with any of the two subjects as required by Rule 1. 2 (a) of the Rules filed as Annexure-D/1, by the respondents. ( 4 ) THE abovestated facts are not in dispute. The real controversy lies in a very narrow compass and it relates to compliance of Rule 1. 2 (a) by the petitioners. It may also be noted that the compliance of this rule relates to a stage prior to admission to B. Ed. College, when a Pre-admission test was held by the respondent No. 2. It is also not the respondent's case that the petitioners ,made any suppression of facts or misrepresentation. Their case is that the petitioners were admitted to the Pre-admission test due to some mistake or error on the part of respondent No. 2, although as a matter of fact they were not eligible for the test examination itself in view of Rule 1. 2 (a) of the Rules. ( 5 ) RULE 1. 2 (a) of the Rules provides that only such candidates shall be eligible to appear at the Pre-B. Ed. test, who, had offered any of the two following subjects for their degree course. These subjects are - Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Botany, Hindi Literature, English Literature, Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic or any other language mentioned in the Constitution-of India. (The rule-makers, to be precise, do not refer to any particular Article or Schedule of the. Constitution for reasons too obvious to be stated), History, Geography, Economics, Political Science. Rule 1. 2 (b) refers to Post-Graduate qualifications in Commerce, Agriculture, Fine Arts and Home Science. (The rule-makers, to be precise, do not refer to any particular Article or Schedule of the. Constitution for reasons too obvious to be stated), History, Geography, Economics, Political Science. Rule 1. 2 (b) refers to Post-Graduate qualifications in Commerce, Agriculture, Fine Arts and Home Science. ( 6 ) THE petitioners have contended that the respondents had no right to cancel their admission in mid-Session, when they were virtually about to complete their course. The order, Annexure-'j' is without any jurisdiction. The respondents on the other hand rely upon Rule 2. 7. 8 of the Rules, which provides that in case it was found that an examinee at the Pre-B. Ed. test had furnished any false information or suppressed material facts in seeking admission or if it is detected at any time, that an examinee was admitted due to any mistake, error, advertent or inadvertent, the admission was liable to be cancelled without any notice to the candidate. It is this rule on which the respondents base their action. ( 7 ) AS has been noted above, there is no allegation about any fraud or misrepresentation against the petitioners. Before proceeding to deal with these ruless the learned Government Advocate Shri Bhargava was pointedly asked about the statutory basis of these rules. He very frankly -conceded that there was none. These rules are nothing but mere executive instructions, issued by the respondent No. 2. These petitioners have submitted that such executive instructions should not be allowed to play with their life and career, more so when there is no allegation of any malpractice against them. ( 8 ) SO far as respondent No. 4-the University is concerned Ordinance No. 36, provides for minimum qualification for admission of the students to the degree and Post-Graduate cources under various faculties. Admissions to various faculties are governed by this Ordinance. Chapter V relates to Faculty of Education and for admission to B. Ed. (Basic), it is clearly provided that any candidate who had passed the B. A. , B. Sc. , B. Com. or B. Sc. (Ag.) examination of this (The Vikram University) or any other University recognised by this University shall be eligible for admission to the courses for the degree of Bachelor of Education (Basic) at a College affiliated to this (Vikram University) University for the Bachelor of Education (Basic) Degree. , B. Com. or B. Sc. (Ag.) examination of this (The Vikram University) or any other University recognised by this University shall be eligible for admission to the courses for the degree of Bachelor of Education (Basic) at a College affiliated to this (Vikram University) University for the Bachelor of Education (Basic) Degree. ( 9 ) INDISPUTABLY the petitioners fulfilled the requirements as laid down by the University for admission to the B. Ed. (Basic) course and even respondent No. 2, on their having passed the admission test, issued admission memos and it was on this basis of the admission-memos issued by respondent No. 2 that the petitioners were admitted to the Lok Manya Tilak Shiksha Mahavidyalaya, Ujjain. Not only admitted, but they had pursued their studies for months, paid their fees till actually the Principal of the College was abruptly called upon by respondent No. 2, vide letter dated 28-11-1988, to explain as to how the petitioners were admitted and were continuing their studies in face of the aforesaid glaring violation and what steps had been taken by the Principal at his hand for cancelling their admissions. It was in pursuance to this letter that the Principal of the College issued the impugned order cancelling petitioners admission to the B. Ed. (Basic) course. ( 10 ) A mere reading of the aforesaid Rule 1. 2 (a) would reveal the inherent absurdity in expecting a commerce graduate to offer subjects like Physics, Chemistry, Sanskrit, Persian or Mathematics or Botany or History or Political Science. Although they have been described as rules, but they are not better than mere executive instructions and these executive instructions cannot be allowed to have an overriding effect on the statutory provisions as incorporated in the University Ordinance. Some of the petitioners are from outside States and on the basis of admission-memos issued by respondent No. 2, they had joined the college and continuing their studies and training almost by the end of the Session; submitting their annual lessons and completing their training. At such a stage cancelling their admission, that too for no fault of theirs, is extremely high-handed act. As rightly urged by learned Counsel Shri Sharma, for the petitioners, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is also attracted. ( 11 ) FOR the foregoing reasons these petitions deserve to be allowed and are accordingly, allowed. The order cancelling petitioners admission to the B. Ed. As rightly urged by learned Counsel Shri Sharma, for the petitioners, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is also attracted. ( 11 ) FOR the foregoing reasons these petitions deserve to be allowed and are accordingly, allowed. The order cancelling petitioners admission to the B. Ed. (Basic) Course is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. The petitioners shall be allowed to continue their studies and training in the College unhampered and uninterrupted. ( 12 ) IN the result, these petitions succeed and are allowed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250/- if certified, to be borne by respondents 1 and 2. Petitions allowed. .