JUDGMENT 1. The reliefs sought in these four writ petitions filed by students admitted to M.B.B.S. Course are similar, and they are therefore disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Petitioners seek appropriate directions to permit them to take the First Year M.B.B.S. Examination. They were not allowed to take the examination, on the ground that they fell short of qualifying attendance. Though exemption had been granted earlier, the authorities changed their mind on the eve of the examinations. Pursuant to interim orders made by a learned Judge of this court, petitioners took the examination. I called for the results and find that four of the petitioners, have passed the First Year M.B.B.S. Examination in Theory and Practical. 3. Petitioners were admitted in the seats available in the 'All India Quota' long after regular classes commenced and only pursuant to directions issued by the High Court and Supreme Court, as seen from Ext. P1 (O.P. 7551/91Y). A candidate should secure eighty per cent attendance to enable him to appear for the First Year M.B.B.S. Examination. Chapter III, Clause (vii) of the Kerala University Ordinances prescribes this requirement. To avoid hardship to those admitted after classes commenced, for no fault of theirs, the Syndicate of the University decided to grant exemption from the required attendance, if the students secured 80 per cent attendance, between their admission and the end of the academic year. A resolution to this effect is produced as Ext. P1 in O.P. 4758/91. The Controller of Examinations; by letter dated 26th February 1991 informed all the Principals of Medical Colleges in the State that the Syndicate at its meeting on 7th February 1991 had decided. "to grant exemption from general norms relating to the requirement of attendance for admission to the First M.B.B.S. Examination, in the case of these candidates who are admitted late to the M.B.B.S. Course and resolved to accept the recommendations of the Standing Committee that these late entrants may be permitted to appear for the examination if they earn 80 per cent attendance during the academic year from the date of their admission to the Course." (Ext. P2 in O.P. 4758/91) On the strength of these, petitioners were permitted to remit the examination fee. Examinations were to commence on 26th April, 1991 or thereabouts. P2 in O.P. 4758/91) On the strength of these, petitioners were permitted to remit the examination fee. Examinations were to commence on 26th April, 1991 or thereabouts. When the time came for issuing Hall Tickets, Petitioners were informed that they were not eligible to take, the examination, for want of attendance. That brought them to this court. 4. Counsel for petitioners submitted that the rule of promissory estoppel, stands in the way of the University and the Colleges from going back on the permission or relaxation granted by them to the students earlier. Counsel would submit that the highest academic body had decided to grant exemption, and that they cannot go back on their earlier decision, on the eve of the examination, when the students had ordained their affairs on the basis of a promise extended by the University. Principles of promissory estoppel established by a long line of decisions of the Supreme Court, including Vasant Kumar Radhakisan Vora v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay AIR 1991 SC 14 , were relied on by petitioners to substantiate their contention. Even in a matter of policy, there cannot be a change of policy in an arbitrary manner. In Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. AIR 1991 S.C. 537 , the Supreme Court observed that: "Non arbitrariness in substance is only fairplay in action. Every action of State and instrumentalities of State must adhere to this requirement." For this reason also, petitioners contend that the reversal of the policy, close on the heels of the examination is not justified. 5. Respondents would submit that gaining practical experience in Anatomy and Physiology by attending the specified number of classes is essential to equip a student for his future responsibilities, and that relaxation of standards would tend to reduce the level of proficiency required of medical graduates. 6. Counsel for the University argued further that there can be no estoppel against a Statute, namely Chapter III, Clause (vii), requiring a minimum attendance. The question does not arise because, estoppel is not claimed against the State, but against going back on a promise made availing of a power under the Statute. Incidentally, in Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala, AIR 1987 SC 590 the Supreme Court held that tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act cannot be levied, in the face of a promise to grant a tax holiday. 7. Incidentally, in Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala, AIR 1987 SC 590 the Supreme Court held that tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act cannot be levied, in the face of a promise to grant a tax holiday. 7. A question may perhaps arise in some cases, whether a rule or doctrine of law should be applied, overlooking requirements of a given situation. The answer would depend on whether ends of justice would be met by applying the principles. Such a situation would not arise in these cases. While the Government or a public authority should be made to adhere to its promises, concerns relevant to public interest, like acquisition of necessary proficiency in the Subject, must also be considered. On a consideration of both aspects, I feel that such of the petitioners, who have passed the First Year M.B.B.S. Examination in Theory and Practical, can be allowed to join the next higher class. To my mind, proficiency required is tested in the examination, and in the case of those who have passed the Practical and Theory Examination, such proficiency has been acknowledged. Therefore, directing the respondents to adhere to their promise, on the basis of which petitioners paid the fee, prepared for the examination and ordained their affairs, is justified. That will do no harm, as their proficiency has been proved by the result of the examination. 8. I called for the practical records of the students and I find that most of them had undergone the practical classes in most of the exercises. I also extended an opportunity to the Principals of the Medical Colleges, to be present so that they could enlighten the court on the academic aspects. The Vice Principal of one of the Colleges was present at the hearing, and he stated that the students had completed all but 11, of the 48 experiments. Even if it is necessary to make up the shortfall of 11 experiments, it can be made up by requiring the students to do the experiments they have not done, by spending extra hours during their second year. I have no doubt that the Professors will do their best to help these students by taking the additional classes, as otherwise they may suffer adverse consequences for no fault of theirs. I have no doubt that the Professors will do their best to help these students by taking the additional classes, as otherwise they may suffer adverse consequences for no fault of theirs. Having regard to these circumstances, I consider that these are fit cases to exercise the jurisdiction under Art.226, invoking the last limb of the Article which gives the power to issue a writ, for any other purpose. 9. In the result, I direct the University to publish the results of petitioners within ten days from today, to avoid further loss of attendance. The competent authority will admit those of the petitioners who have passed the First Year M.B.B.S. Examination into the Second Year Course and permit them to pursue their studies. If such students have not taken any practical lesson, they will be permitted to take those by attending extra classes during their instruction in the Second Year. Those who have not passed the Examination, will not get the benefit of these directions. Writ Petitions are allowed as above. Parties will suffer their costs.