JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav. J. - Whether the principle of promissory estoppel quasi-estoppel, new estoppel and requisition estoppel were applicable to the facts of the present case is the short question for determination in this petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the candidature of the petitioner in the P.C.S. (J) 1986 examination as valid and to treat him as an ex-serviceman and to direct the U.P. Public Service Commission to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment to the State Government. 2. The petitioner joined Indian Air Force on 8-4-1970 as Airman, passed B.A. in 1978, L.L.B. in 1988 and L.L.M. in 1989. He completed 15 years service in Air Force on 8-4-1985, which was the minimum required service for pensionary and other benefits. The petitioner was granted extension for 6 years and during this period he could apply for service in other departments, as an ex- service man. 3. In pursuance of an advertisement issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission (for short the Commission), published in Northern Indian Patrika (Copy enclosed as Annexure 2 to the petition) inviting applications for U.P. Nyayik Seva. (Munsif) Examination 1986, petitioners submitted his application for the same after completing all the formalities required in the advertisement. In the advertisement it was also indicated that Ex-servicemen may also apply provided he has 5 years army service at his credit and this upper age limit will be greater by 5 years but this concession will not be admissible to those who are dismissed on account of misconduct or inefficiency and who have been discharged on account of any physical disability or incapability for Army Service. Such applicants were also required to submit a certificate from the competent authority of Army to the effect that their period of service has been extended for rehabilitation and no disciplinary action is pending against them and the applicants will have to submit an undertaking with their application that in case they are selected for the post applied for, they will get themselves released immediately from their respective wings. The petitioner along with his application form submitted a certificate issued by the competent authority of Air Force (Adjutant) to the effect that his services have been extended for another period of 6 years and he also gave an undertaking that in case he is selected for the post applied for, he would get himself released from the Air Force. 4. The application form of the petitioner was accepted and found in order by the Commission and he was issued admit card to appear in the said examination. He appeared in the examination, the petitioner was declared successful in the written examination, he was called for the interview and was declared finally selected. Thereafter, in police verification and medical fitness also he was found fit for the post but some how, name of petitioner could not find place in the final appointment/posting list. Hence present petition has been filed. 5. Mr. V.C. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that as the Commission offered to recruit candidates for P.C.S.(J) 1986 and thereby made deliberate promise to that effect subject to the conditions indicated in the advertisement (Annexure-2) and the petitioner having fulfilled those conditions applied for the same and changed his legal position and the promissory having accepted his application as an ex-serviceman, issued admit card, declared successful in written examination and interview, made police verification medical check up and at no stage having raised any objection, principles of promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel, quasi- estoppel, requisition estoppel and new estoppel are fully applicable in the present case and the Commission and State Government are bound by these principles. Reliance was placed on M/s. Jagannath Roller Flour Mill v. State of Orissa (AIR 1986 Orissa 163)., Surya Narain Yadav's case (1985) 3 SCC 38 ) : (1985 Lab IC 961), Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India (1985) 4 SCC 369 ) : AIR 1986 Supreme Court 806. and Express News Paper v. Union of India AIR 1986 Supreme Court 872. 6. Learned Standing Counsel refuted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and urged that the principles of promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel, quasi-estoppel, requisition estoppel and new estoppel were not applicable in the present case as the defect was detected in the application submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner was not ex-serviceman on the date he made the application hence writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties the point for determination is whether under the facts and circumstances of the case principles of promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel, quasi-estoppel, requisition estoppel and new estoppel are applicable in the present case. There is no doubt that the doctrine has been developed in the new jurisprudence that where there is deliberate promise, which is intended to affect legal relations, it would be inequitable to hold that the promissory is not bound when the promisee has acted on the promise. Sometimes it is plaintiff who is not allowed to act on his legal rights. It is implicit in modern cases where principle has been developed. Thus a creditor is not allowed to enforce a debt which he has deliberately agreed to waive, if the debtor has carried on business or in some other way changed his position in reliance on the waiver. (See Re Porter William & Co. (1937) 2 All England Reporter 361 and Howell v. Falsemouth Boat Construction Co. Ltd. ( 1951 AC 837 ). 8. In Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Ulhas Nagar Municipal Council AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1021. it was held that even public bodies are also bound as private individuals by the Principle and in case unless some special circumstances were shown the State was bound by the doctrine. (See M/s. Modal Padmpat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., AIR 1979 Supreme Court 621 (1979 All U 388). 9. In the following cases also principles were explained that the doctrine applies to Government and Statutory Bodies. M/s. Jagannath Roller Flour Mill v. State of Orissa (AIR 1986 Orissa 163) : (1985) Lab IC 961), Surya Narain Yadav's case (1985) 3 SCC 38 ), Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India (1985) 4 SCC 369 ) : AIR 1986 Supreme Court 806. and Express Newspaper v. Union of India, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 872. 10. In the present case, from the advertisement it was clear, that the persons who are in employment may also apply but they will have to submit a certificate from the competent authority of Army/Navy/Air Force to the effect that their period of service has been extended for rehabilitation and no disciplinary action is pending against them. 10. In the present case, from the advertisement it was clear, that the persons who are in employment may also apply but they will have to submit a certificate from the competent authority of Army/Navy/Air Force to the effect that their period of service has been extended for rehabilitation and no disciplinary action is pending against them. Applicants will have also to submit a written undertaking with their application that in case they are selected for the post applied for, they will get themselves released immediately from their respective wings. It means till final selection is made in some cases indicated he may continue in service. The petitioner completed 15 years regular service in Air Force on 30th April 1985, which was minimum required service for pensionary and other benefits and thereafter was granted extension for 6 years. No disciplinary action was taken or pending against him. Written undertaking was also given that in case he is selected to the post applied for, he will get himself relieved from his respective wing. Relevant certificate dated 16-1-1987 (Annexure 3) was also furnished by the petitioner. The petitioner did not conceal any fact. Even assuming that there was some bona fide mistake in the application form, that could have been detected at earlier stage and the application form could have been rejected on that basis. But after accepting the application form and examination fee, issuing admit card permitting him to appear in the examination, declaring him successful in the written examination, permitting him to appear in the interview, making police verification and medical examination and ultimately selecting him finally for the post applied for, it was not justified on the part of Commission, not to recommend the name of petitioner to Government for appointment. In such matters it was the erring official of the Commission, due to whose inadvertence, mistake if any in the form could not be detected at appropriate stages, who should have been penalised or warned as the case may be, and not the innocent applicant who made application in good faith without concealing any fact and followed every direction of Commission during selection process. The deliberate promise having been made by the responsible that the candidates fulfilling the conditions mentioned in the advertisement (Annexure-2) may apply for the post (P.C.S. (J) and the petitioner did apply for the said post fulfilling all the conditions mentioned in the advertisement and there was no concealment on his part rather his application form was found to be in order. The petitioner has also given an undertaking that he would get himself relieved from Air Force in case he is selected for the post applied for. The promissory (respondents) accepted the application for of the petitioner and permitted to appear in the written examination and interview and he was finally selected and was directed to appear before the Chief Medical Officer and police verification was also made. But at the last moment petitioner was denied the appointment letter by the State Government. Under these circumstances principle of promissory estoppel, quasi estoppel or equitable estoppel were applicable and the respondents were bound by the same and they could not deny appointment letter to the petitioner nor could they take stand that the application form of the petitioner was not in order in any way. Even though apparently the same was correct and there was no mistake according to the advertisement issued. There is no option but to direct the respondents to issue appointment letter, as case for issuance of writ of Mandamus has been made out. 11. In view of the premises aforesaid, petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner an Ex-serviceman and the respondent No. 2 Public Service Commission through its Secretary is directed to recommend the name of petitioner for P.C.S. (J) 1986 list and the respondent No. 1 State of U.P. is directed to include the name of petitioner in the final list of appointment of P.C.S. (J) 1986 and to issue appointment letter to the petitioner within a period of 3 months from today. There shall however, be no order as to costs.