P. K. SHYAMSUNDAR, J. ( 1 ) ALL these writ petitions admit of disposal by a common order since they are all by in service doctors who had been admitted to the post graduate degree and diploma course in various disciplines of medicine and surgery which courses are run under the aegis of the Mysore university. All of them were admitted to regular courses during the academic year 1987-88 and in the usual course were expected to complete their tenure in the respective disciplines in which they were undergoing instruction and training for a period of 3 years and 2 years respectively depending upon the fact of the course in question being a course in post graduate degree or diploma. ( 2 ) HOWEVER, in relation to particular categories of post graduate students admitted to the degree and diploma course, by a regulation passed by the university at regulation 2 (b) (ii) the duration of the said coursestood curtailed in the case of post graduate degree by one year and in case of post graduate diploma by 6 months. This exemption was available to students like the petitioners who are all in service candidates being assistant surgeons in the employ of the government. ( 3 ) THE format of the regulation which carried the a fore said exemption apropos the in service candidates underwent an amendment in the year 1986 by a notification dated 14-8-1986 and under the post amendment regulation the benefit of a shorter duration course available to an in service student stood removed while it continued in regard to other categories. The regulations as it stood earlier and as they stood after its amendment has been produced in this writ petition at Annexure 'f. For the sake of felicity it is excerpted as follows:- university of Mysore regulations relating to post graduate courses in medicine regulation No. 2 (b) (ii ). Existing 1. Service as tutor, demonstrator, lecturer , registrar or assistant surgeon or training as houseman or resident in a teaching institution for one year in the subject of the speciality. Or as amended (1) service as tutor, demonstrator, lecturer, registrar or training as houseman or resident in a teaching institution/hospitals attached to medical colleges for one year in the subject of the speciality. 2. Or as amended (1) service as tutor, demonstrator, lecturer, registrar or training as houseman or resident in a teaching institution/hospitals attached to medical colleges for one year in the subject of the speciality. 2. Service as tutor, demonstrator, lecturer, registrar or assistant surgeon or training as houseman or resident in teaching institution for six months in the subject of speciality and the remaining six months in one or the allied subjects will be treated as equal to one year senior housemanship. In regard to senior housemanship the director general, armed forces, medical services, New Delhi, may be consulted as to the appointments in the military hospitals and other units which could be considered equal to senior housemanship or or (2) service as tutor, demonstrator, registrar or training as houseman or resident in a teaching institution for six months in the subject in one of the allied subjects will be treated as equal to one year housemanship. 3. Service or training for two years in the concerned speciality in a hospital recognised for internship (not a teaching hospital) will be equivalent to one year of the senior housemanship. Or deleted ( 4 ) SERVICE or training as assistant surgeon or three years of which at least one year in a hospital recognised for internship can be counted towards one year of senior housemanship. Ordeleted existing ( 5 ) SERVICE in the armed forces medical service for a period of five years can be counted towards one year of senior housemanship. . as amended deleted however, half the period spent in one of the above categories taken together with half of the period spent in any of the other category mentioned above will make a candidate eligible to earn six monlhs' or one year's exemption depending upon the time spent. Deleted ( 6 ) BASED on these norms the dean of faculty will make appropriatere commendation to grant exemption in each case. No change renumbered as 3. 4. Deleted ( 6 ) BASED on these norms the dean of faculty will make appropriatere commendation to grant exemption in each case. No change renumbered as 3. 4. Albeit under the amended regulations which alone were attracted to each of these petitioners being clearly exccptcd from the benefit of any exemption and therefore had to undergo the full course lasting in the case of post graduate degree for 3 years and in the case of post graduate diploma for 2 years, even then the university published a chart carrying a communication about the duration of the course pertaining to all the petitioners indicating only the examination schedule (month-wise) on the basis of which three of the petitioners herein stood relieved on the supposition that they had completed their 'course. Appendix to Annexure-A gives those details and is as follows:- statcmcnt showing the duration of course and examination fitted in respect of students admitted to p. g. degree and diploma courses (medical) for the year 1987-88-governmcnt medical college, mysore. SI. No. Name Course for which admitted. Date of Admn. Duration of course Exam in the Course duration Exam to be taken in Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN SERVICE P. G. STUDENTS: ' - 3 Chcluvaraja V. M. D. (Genmed.) 11-4-83 3yrs. . One yr. June/july 90 13 M. S. Shiva murthy M. S. (Opthai) 26-2-88 3yrs. One yr. June/july 90 26 Shantha Kumar M. V. DOMS (Opthal) 24-2-88 2yrs. 6 Months Dec. 89/ Jan. 90 (Relieved) 34 V. Raju: DCII Pacdi 21-2-88 2yrs. 6 Months Dec. 89/ Jan. 90 (Relieved) 5. It is seen from the foregoing chart that three of the petitioners here in stood relieved being treated as having completed their course within a span of 2 years 6 months. It may be noticed the duration of the course as filed under the chart being 2 years 6 months was also a clear error because all of them were students registered to undergo the diploma course duration of which was only 2 years and hence the total duration could never have been 2ycars 6 months, even if the period of exemption was counted in their favour. 6. 6. Be that as it may, they were notified to take their examination in December 1989 or January 1990 and had been relieved from their course as per anncxure-a. Subsequently, some of the petitioners having reported back to their department were also given postings an aspect which becomes clear from annexures-b and c. Anncxure-d is a communication notifying the petitioners that they would be relieved on the dates mentioned therein the dates being 10-8-1989 to 25-8-1989 and 25-9-1989. It is, therefore, clear that in August and September 1989 the petitioner were relieved and had also joined work on being posted as per Annexure-B and c. Hence the position was that all these people i. e,, in the case of students registered for diploma courses the examination being scheduled in the month of may 1990 and in the case of students registered for post graduate degree course was fixed for July 1990. The petitioners who were looking forward to take their final examinations, received another communication issued by the university at anncxurc 'e' dated 3-10-1989. It is this communication which has given rise to this spate of writ petitions. It reads:university of Mysore mysore viswayidyanilaya karya soudha, (crawford hall) Mysore sub:- admission to pg medical degree/diploma courses during 1987-88-fixation of duration-corrections thereof. Ref:- university letter No. Ac. 8/134/87-88, dated 3-11-1988 addressed to the principal, govt. Medical college, mysore. Preamble in the university letter mentioned under reference above, the duration of courses and date of examination in respect of 137 students were fixed as detailed in the statement enclosed to the said letter. In the regulations notified in No. R8-667/74-75, dated 2-2-1980, the service rendered as assistant surgeon was also considered as eligibility for the purpose of granting exemption in the duration of the course for post graduate degree and diploma candidates based on these regulations, exemption were given to a few candidates who have worked as assistant surgeon or who have done rural service for a period of ten years. . It is noted that the regulation pertaining to grant of exemption has been amended and notified in No. R8-225/81-82 dated 17-9-1986. Under these amended regulations, the services of an assistant surgeon, medical officer or rural services are deleted for the purpose of granting exemption in the duration of the course. By an error, the exemption was granted to the following candidates based on the repealed regulations. Under these amended regulations, the services of an assistant surgeon, medical officer or rural services are deleted for the purpose of granting exemption in the duration of the course. By an error, the exemption was granted to the following candidates based on the repealed regulations. To set right this error, it has become necessary to issue the following order to partially modify the earlier statement enclosed to the letter cited under reference, so as to be in conformity with the regulations. Accordingly, the following order is issued. Order No. Ac. 8/134/87-88, dated 3-10-1989 in partial modification of the statement course arid the date of examination in respect enclosed to the university letter No. Ac. Of the students are noted against each in page 8/134/87-88,dated3-li-1988,thedurationofthe No. 2. SI. No. Name of the candidate Course for which addmitted Date of Admn. Duration of the course Exemption, if any Date of Examination 1. V. Cheluvaraju MD (Gen. Med.) 11. 4. 88 3yrs. Nil June/july 1991 2. Munisiddaiah M. S. (Gen. Surg.) 26. 2. 88 3yrs. Nil -do- 3. M. S. Shivamurthy M. S. (Opthal) 26. 2. 88 3yrs. Nil -do- 4. Shanthakumar M. S. DOMS (Opthal) 24. 2. 88 2yrs. Nil June/july 1990 5. V. Raju DCH (Paedia) 20. 2. 86 2yrs. Nil -do- 6. Tulsiram D. Ortho 26. 2. 88 2yrs. Nil -do- ( 7 ) IT is noticed from the said communication that with reference to these petitioners and one more person Dr. Muni siddaiah, the benefit of a shortened course to which they were treated as being entitled to when they were, relieved in the months of August and September 1989, and under anncxurc-b, d pursuant to the fixation of their academic programme under the appendix to Annexure-A had stood altered resulting in all these petitioners being obliged to continue the academic course for a further period of 6 months in the case of diploma students and for a period of 1 year in the case of post graduate students. The communication says that the academic programmes fixed earlier under which they were treated to a shortened course was by virtue of an error committed by the university extending by mistake the benefit of an exemption that was in force as per regulation 2b (ii) as it stood earlier and prior to its amendment in the year 1986 when the benefit of such exemption was withdrawn and made available to the in service students to which category the petitioners admittedly belonged to. ( 8 ) IT is the legality and the tenability of this communication which is assailed by all these men of medicine and on whose behalf learned counsel Sri u. l. narayana rao has sought to support the attack en this communication by raising and arguing two contentions, namely 1) that the university haying led the petitioner to believe they were eligible for exemption in the duration of the course and having conducted themselves in such a manner towards the petitioners, the feeling or thought that they would be completing their course in terms of the programme fastened by the university under the appendix to Annexure-A further endorsed by the circumstance the university college having relieved the petitioner under anncxure-d pursuant to which the petitioners had also gone back to work with the government after taking posting under annexures 'b' and 'c, respondent university was clearly precluded from resiling from its former stand in the guise of correcting a mistake and thus jeopardise career prospect of the petitioners. Contention No. 2 is that there was even now proof of other students like the petitioners who had been admitted to these course had been allowed to complete the course, giving them the benefit of exemption under the old regulation which act or conduct of the university in denying to the petitioners a similar benefit was clearly discriminatory and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under article 14 of the constitution. Sri u. l. narayana rao, learned counsel for the petitioners relied in support of this contention several decisions to which i shall advert to a little later. On behalf of the university learned counsel sri. Sri u. l. narayana rao, learned counsel for the petitioners relied in support of this contention several decisions to which i shall advert to a little later. On behalf of the university learned counsel sri. Mohanrangam maintained that this was a simple case of correcting a mistake committed by the university in treating the petitioners as eligible to an exemption to which they were clearly not entitled to be governed as they were by the amended regulations placed on the statute book in the year 1986. It was there long before the petitioners joined their course of study, counsel said that the mistake had occurred because of a wrong recommendation made by the dean of the faculty who under the regulations was required to make recommendations for grant of exemptions and because the dean had made recommendations in regard to some of these candidates on an erroneous basis, the university, on the basis of the erroneous recommendations made by the dean had unfortunately perpetrated that error, by extending to these petitioners the benefit of an exemption which was not there at all, as under the amended regulation an in service candidate was not eligible for any exemption in the duration of the course. Counsel maintains that every authority has the inherent and implicit power to correct its own mistakes and if the mistake herein is not corrected would have led to grave and the more serious error of conferring an academic distinction on a student who had not completed the. Course itself and was therefore plainly ineligible for the grant of a degree or a diploma. Counsel pointed out that was how a review of such cases was taken up and wherever such mistake was found to have occurred it had been rectified by passing correctional orders. He also produced a subsequent notification issued by the university dated the 8th december, 1989 under which some more students who had been granted the benefit of the exemption wrongly like the petitioners, having been told of the mistake and their academic programme re-scheduled. ( 9 ) MR. Mohanrangam also tells me that the university will also now undertake a further review of all cases of in-service candidates who are found to have been granted the benefit of any. . exemption in regard to the duration of the course, correction orders will also be issued in those cases as well. ( 9 ) MR. Mohanrangam also tells me that the university will also now undertake a further review of all cases of in-service candidates who are found to have been granted the benefit of any. . exemption in regard to the duration of the course, correction orders will also be issued in those cases as well. He assures me that it was not the intention of the univcrsityto make any invidious distinction between any particular group of students belonging to the same category. Mr. Mohanrangam's statement as above is placed on record. ( 10 ) BEFORE i advert to the contentions of Mr. Narayana rao, and to ils several facets as elaborated by Mr. Rao, i must notice that exemption from doing any act or rendering any service is not claimable as of right, exemption pre-supposes; that the person claiming the benefit thereof is duty bound to follow certain course or adhere to certain norms but then because of some expediency involved and it is so recognised, he is exonerated or absolved from the burden of rendering that duly or to adhere to the prcscribed course of conduct. Merely because he is exempted from adhering to a particular norm he cannot say that the authority which sets the standards should be held bound or be pegged down to its own format which in certain circumstances may be beneficial to people like the petitioners. If an exemption is granted it can always be withdrawn and more so when it is obvious that the grant of exemption was based on a mistake of fact. There is no gainsaying and in fact cither Mr. Narayana rao or Mr. Gopal gowda learned counsel appearing in the connected writ petition sought to contend that an authority had always the power to correct its own mistakes. If, therefore, the university in revoking the exemption granted to the petitioners earlier as per appendix to Annexure-A acting on the ground that the grant of such exemption was a mistake because it was not available at all since the relevant regulations did not confer or grant to the university the power to exempt an in service candidates from completing the full duration of the course to which he is enrolled, in that event it should become evident that there cannot be any impediment cither legal or otherwise in rectifying or setting right ils own records by the university. Even at the risk of repeating myself i would again like to/draw attention to the regulations produced at Annexure-F and the format of the regulations set out therein which refer to the earlier regulations as also the amended regulations and it is futile to reiterate that it is the amended regulation that came into force in the year 1986 that governs the case of all these petitioners and there is no controversy or dispute about it. Under the regulation of the year 1980, the in-service candidates had the benefit of taking a shortened course be it a post graduate degree or diploma but then for the reasons best known to the university, under the amended regulations that exemption was totally withdrawn so far as the in-service candidates are concerned while it did continue in regard to certain other categories. The position therefore was i. e. , as the like when the petitioners enrolled themselves for the post graduate diploma and post graduate degree courses under the regulation that governed them, their course of studies did not enjoin the granting of any exemption, to persons like the petitioners at all. This being the position on facts i need hardly say that not merely the university, the petitioners arc also expected to note and be aware of the stale of the regulations since no person can plead ignorance of law, the maxim being ignorantia juris non-cxcusat. In fact i do not sec any allegation in the writ petition pleading lack of knowledge about the relevant regulations that were operating in the year in which the petitioners were enrolled to the higher degree courses. Under the circumstances, if petitioners are deemed to have had the knowledge of these regulations, I am afraid there is very little room for any argument seeking for the annihilation of the impugned communication at Annexure-E. ( 11 ) WITH this preface i now go on to consider the submissions of Mr. Narayana rao, based on the two points raised by him: point No. 1: estoppel:- indicaled as I have done of my views on this aspect already there is clearly no case of estoppel at all. Obviously a previous mistake had been corrected by the university in passing the impugned order. Narayana rao, based on the two points raised by him: point No. 1: estoppel:- indicaled as I have done of my views on this aspect already there is clearly no case of estoppel at all. Obviously a previous mistake had been corrected by the university in passing the impugned order. The petitioners who were not entilled to the benefit of any exemption so far as the duration of the course is concerned had by a mistake given the benefit of such exemption and in the view that they had been treated as completed the course and had been actually relieved. They had gone back to the department and obtained postings. Howevcrso, it docs not preclude the university from correcting ils own mistake. The fall out from the order of relief passed by ihe university is not a ground to assail the impugned communicalion by setting up the plea of estoppel. I would say if the petitioners were ineligible for such exemption they arc simply taking cover under an order wrongly granting exemption and therefore cannot be heard now to say that the university must be penalised for back tracking by denying them the benefits granted earlier. If as a matter of fact the petitioners knew that they were not eligible for the said exemption, i hold that they had the necessary information in the light of the amended regulations of the year 1986 which was already on the statute book; they cannot be now heard to contend that the mistake committed in their case should be persisted through and through and they must be given benefit of that mistake. At any rate they cannot take recourse to article 226 for seeking a relief if granted will have the effect of giving them an ill-gotten gain and in this case being bound to complete the prescribed academic course which had not been completed by them at all one can very well visualise the deleterious effect of endorsing such a stand in the case of these doctors seeking to obtain a post graduate degree or diploma, even without completing the full course. What is more how has the conduct of the university changed their own position, has it operated to their detriment or prejudice is the further question. What is more how has the conduct of the university changed their own position, has it operated to their detriment or prejudice is the further question. Estoppel has two limbs, firstly it is representation and nextly it is the metamorphosis or the alteration caused in the life and conduct of the person to whom such a representation made. Let us now sec what has been done to these petitioners. " all that has happened they had been relieved, sent back to their department and have obtained postings. Now what will happen is they will be called back, asked to study for some more time during which period they will be paid their salaries and all other benefits to which they were entitled as before. To a question put to Mr. Narayana rao he had to admit if only the communication anncxure-e had been put out when the petitioners were still undergoing the course and before they were relieved they could not have possibly complained about it on any ground and muchlcss on the ground of estoppel. I hardly see any difference. These people were relieved in September 1989 and the correction order passed on 3-10-1989 hardly one month later and during the interregnum they had reported to their respective places of posting and had performed their dutics, they will now be recalled and asked to undergo training for some more time. I do not see any hardship, prejudice, detriment caused to them by the action of the university. ( 12 ) CLEARLY on facts there is no case of estoppel. In support of his proposition Mr. Narayana has relied on some decisions. The 1st decision relied on by Mr. Narayana rao was the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Vij resins pvt. Ltd. And another v state of jammu and kashmir and others, AIR 1989 SC 1629 . I hardly sec any parity in the principle mooted by that decision and the instant case as is evidenced from the facts mentioned in the head note at b:" (b) Evidence Act (1872 ). Ltd. And another v state of jammu and kashmir and others, AIR 1989 SC 1629 . I hardly sec any parity in the principle mooted by that decision and the instant case as is evidenced from the facts mentioned in the head note at b:" (b) Evidence Act (1872 ). Section 115 - estoppel against legislature - companies invited by state government to set up in industries, by assuring them supply of raw material - companies making investments factories were ready and in a position to utilise raw mate rial-state government enacting legislation to obliterate companies' rights and enabling the stale to gel out of commitments - held, the circumstances gave rise to a facl situation of estoppel (obctcr ). "that was a case where the state government invited a private company to set up industries by assuring them supply of raw material, thereupon the company made huge investments, set up a factory and made it ready for commissioning and at that stage some law was passed precluding the exploition of the raw material available in the slate by those companies. Their lordships merely say those circumstanccs had given rise to a fact situation of estoppel did not choose to rest their decision on that ground. It was finally held therein the act of thc legislature suffered from the vice of taking away right to properly wilhoul providing compensation and was hit by article 31 (2) of the constitution. I do not, therefore, think the decision in M/s. Vij resins pvi. Ltd. Can render any assislance lo the petitioners. ( 13 ) MR. Narayana rao relied next- on another decision of the Supreme Court in n. Ramanatha pillai v the state of Kerala and another, AIR 1973 SC 2641 . He read to me a passage at head note (b) which reads.- head note (b ).-"as a general Rule the doctrine of estoppel will not be applied against the stale in the governmental public or sovereign capacity. An exception however arises where it is necessary to prevent fraud or manifest injustice. " ( 14 ) AS the head note indicates the application of the doctrine of estoppel to State Action is limited to cases where it was involved to prevent fraud or manifest injustice. Mr. An exception however arises where it is necessary to prevent fraud or manifest injustice. " ( 14 ) AS the head note indicates the application of the doctrine of estoppel to State Action is limited to cases where it was involved to prevent fraud or manifest injustice. Mr. Narayana rao was fair enough to say that he was not accusing the university of committing any fraud but counsel wanted to suggest that the action of the university had lead to some injustice being perpetrated on the petitioners. I am afraid it is not a very laudable argument and as I have pointed out herein before, by merely being asked to study for some more time after affording all the facilities, cannot by any stretch of imagination be dubbed as an act of injustice. To treat it as unjust action would be a very uncharitable comment. I therefore think little reliance can be placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in n. Ramanatha pillai's case. For the reasons mentioned above, the argument resulting on the doctrine of estoppel fails and has tobe discarded. ( 15 ) I shall now go into the second pointrc-discrimination.- it is argued that some of the other in-service students who were also not eligible for the grant of exemption and had been allowed to get away under the cover of illegal exemption. Some names have been furnished. The case of one channe gowda and one shivananda swamy and goenkar are mentioned. In regard to channe gowda it is seen that he is not one of the students registered for training for the academic year 1987-88. Therefore, his case cannot be cited as a precedent to support the argument of discrimination on behalf of the petitioners. In regard to shivananda and goenkar, Mr. Mohanrangam for the university says their cases will be reviewed and appropriate orders passed before the examinations, scheduled for December 1989 and January 1990 are held. Mr. Mohanrangam also says university will now undertake a thorough overhauling of the entire list of in service candidates and rectify mistakes if any in the grant of exemption to the ineligible candidates and that this exercise will be done and completed before current examination. I have already placed the undertaking of Mr. Mr. Mohanrangam also says university will now undertake a thorough overhauling of the entire list of in service candidates and rectify mistakes if any in the grant of exemption to the ineligible candidates and that this exercise will be done and completed before current examination. I have already placed the undertaking of Mr. Mohanrangam in their behalf on record and will hold the university it this undertaking in the light of the submissions made on behalf of the university. Mr. Narayana rao relied lastly on decision of thesuprcme court in the case of rajendra prasad mathur v kamataka university and another, AIR 1986 SC 1448 , i shall make a brief reference to the same. That was a case in which the petitioner rajendra prasad mathur was found to have been wrongly admitted to a college and after having undergone the course for 4 years, the university found fault with his admission and wanted to expel him from the course. The petitioner successfully assailed that action before the Supreme Court. The observations made by the Supreme Court in that behalf pointing out that the mistake was committed by the institution which appeared to have deliberately overlooked, the deficiency in the ease of the petitioners and had nonetheless admitted them to the, college because of the lure of capitation fees, their lordships made the following observation in that be half.-"the fault lies with the engineering colleges which admitted the appellants because the principals of these engineering colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet. For the sake of capitation fee in some of the eases they granted admission to the appellants we do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins, of the managements of these engineering colleges. "apart from the fact, that the relief given to the appellant before the Supreme Court turned on its own facts, there is an essential distinction between rajendra prasad's case and this case. The decision in rajendra prasad's-case was one of admission to a college and herein the case is one exemption in regard to the term of a course. As I have pointed out earlier nobody can claim exemption as of right and if that is so nobody can complain of its withdrawal as well. Thus the second point also fails and is discarded. As I have pointed out earlier nobody can claim exemption as of right and if that is so nobody can complain of its withdrawal as well. Thus the second point also fails and is discarded. ( 16 ) COUNSEL then mentions that the petitioners are now required to be recalled from their departments to undergo the further course of study in the university and says government may not relieve them and may deny leave facility and benefit of salary etc. I do not see why the petitioners should entertain any apprehensions on that score because,, whatever has happened was due to no fault of theirs and mistake was essentially of the university. Therefore, it will be the duty of the university to ensure that the petitioners get the benefit of further deputation to attend the course and all other attendant benefits to which they were entitled to earlier. In addition, i now make a direction to the registrar of the university to arrange with the government for the further deputation of all the petitioners to undergo the reminder of the course and to ensure the petitioners get all monetary benefits such as salary, leave etc. ( 17 ) BY hind sight it seems to me that the contest by the petitioners of the action of the university was clearly unwarranted if not on any ground at least on grounds of pragmatism. Pursuit of technical studies i need hardly add should always be attended by a desire to achieve a degree of excellence in the discipline chosen because that need is pre-eminent for the simple reason that every scholar coming out of the portals of the institution must give to the society the benefit of his training and if that is so what can we expect from persons who have not even completed their course of study. I wish the petitioners had asked themselves this question before launching themselves on this litigation. Having regard to my views as aforesaid these writ petitions in which i sec no, merit fail and are dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. Writ petitions dismissed --- *** --- .