JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 3.9.1991 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Ajmer, whereby he was served with one months' notice of termination of his service. 2. In brief. the facts of the case are that the petitioner submitted an application for recruitment on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector/Clerk in Central Reserve Police Force (For short, to be referred as CRPF). The posts were advertised in the year 1991 itself. Petitioner appeared for examination and interview held by the respondents in the month of June, 1991 at New Delhi. On being declared successful, the petitioner was asked to undergo training and he undertook training at Gandhi Nagar (Gujrat) between 1.7.1991 and 31.8.1991. After successful completion of training, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector/Clerk by an order dated September 3,1991 issued by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Ajmer. However on that very day another order came to be issued, by which the petitioner has been served with a notice purporting to be termination of his service on expiry of one months' period. Petitioner made a representation on 17.9.1991 against the notice of termination of his service, but when he did not get any response from the respondents, he filed this writ petition. 3. Petitioner has assailed the order dated September 3,1991 (Annexure-5) on the ground that it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before issuance of the said order. No notice was given to him about the proposed action of termination of his service. 4. Petitioner has been duly selected by the competent authority and therefore, his service cannot be terminated under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. According to him, his performance has not been touched and therefore, the question of his performance being unsatisfactory simply does not arise. Petitioner stated that he fulfils the minimum requisite qualification for appointment as A.S.I./Clerk. He had submitted all his documents at the time of filling up the application form and it was very well within the knowledge of the respondents that the petitioner was having the qualification of Higher Secondary from the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer. Petitioner stated that he fulfils the minimum requisite qualification for appointment as A.S.I./Clerk. He had submitted all his documents at the time of filling up the application form and it was very well within the knowledge of the respondents that the petitioner was having the qualification of Higher Secondary from the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer. Respondents had knowingly selected the petitioner because they knew that the petitioner fulfils the requisite academic qualification, which made him eligible for appointment as A.S.I./Clerk. Now it is not open to the respondents to question the eligibility of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment as A.S.I./Clerk. 5. Respondents have come out with the case that recruitment to the post of A.S.I./Clerk is required to be made as per the provisions contained in the Central Reserve Police Force (Combated Ministerial Cadre) Recruitment Rules, 1989. For the purpose of recruitment to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) the minimum educational qualification required by the Rules is 'intermediate (10+2 or equivalent)'. In the advertisement issued by the respondents, the -academic qualification has specifically been specified as Intermediate (10+2 or equivalent). Relaxation in some other categories of persons was also specified in the advertisement. The Petitioner only possesses the qualification of Higher Secondary from the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer. As per Para 3 of Officer of appointment the petitioner was asked to produce the original copy of educational certificate, so that order of appointment could be issued. On scrutiny of the documents/ educational certificates submitted by the petitioner, it came to the notice of the authorities that the petitioner does not possess the requisite academic qualification. The order of appointment dated 3.9.91 was issued on account of the fact that lack of academic qualification did not come to the notice of the respondents, but as soon as the same was detected, the order Annexure-5 was issued. Respondents have come out with the case that since the petitioner does not fulfil the minimum requisite academic qualification, no right can be said to have been conferred on the petitioner merely because the order dated 3.9.91 was issued. No legal or constitutional right of the petitioner can be said to have been violated. The Court cannot compel the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service even though he is. not qualified to be appointed or to continue in service. 6. No legal or constitutional right of the petitioner can be said to have been violated. The Court cannot compel the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service even though he is. not qualified to be appointed or to continue in service. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has in the first place, argued that the petitioner must considered as eligible. The authorities of the respondents considered the petitioner to be qualified on the basis of the documents produced by him. He was called upon to appear in the examination and interview after scrutiny of his application form. According to Shri Chaudhary, in Rajasthan the Higher Secondary is the last school -1 educational qualification. The system of 10+2 has been introduced very recently. The Government of Rajasthan has amended its rules and has substituted the words "Higher Secondary" with the words "Higher Secondary or Sr. Higher Secondary" in its various service rules. Thus the qualification of Higher Secondary which is possessed by the petitioner must be treated as equivalent to Intermediate (10+2). 7. In my opinion, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The use of the words "Intermediate (10+2)" clearly indicates that the Rule making authority has prescribed the qualification which makesa candidate eligible for appointment as A.S.L(M)/A.S.L/Clerk. The use of 10+2 in practice after the words "Intermediate" fortifies the intention of the Rule making authority that the candidates must have passed the examination up to 12th Standard to be eligible for appointment as A.S.I./Clerk in the service of the respondents. A candidate who has passed Higher Secondary Examination from the Board of Secondary Education passes the examination up to 11th Standard. The qualification of Higher Secondary cannot be equated with the qualification of Intermediate (10+2). Therefore, in my considered opinion,the. petitioner was not having the requisite qualification, which could entitle him for appointment as A)S.1. (M.)/A.S.I./Clerk. 8. The next submission made by Shri Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner is that after having treated the petitioner as eligible and after having allowed to under-take training and after having appointed the petitioner, the respondents now cannot turn-round and declare the petitioner as ineligible and terminate his service. He urged that the respondents should be held as bound by the principle of equitable estoppel from changing the position of the petitioner. He urged that the respondents should be held as bound by the principle of equitable estoppel from changing the position of the petitioner. Petitioner gave up his previous employment in order to join in service of the respondents and now he will be put to irreparable injury. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University ( AIR 1976 S.C. 376 ) and Prahlad Kumar v. University of Rajasthan (1985 R.L.R. 580). 9. Shri Lodha, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand argued, that there can be no estoppel against the statute. The rules are very specific, clear and unambiguous and, therefore,mere fact that the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination or to undergo training will not entitle him to claim that he should be continued in service. A clear violation of law had taken place in selecting the petitioner for appointment as A.S.L(M)/A.S.L/Clerk. Once it is found that the petitioner is not qualified, the respondents were fully justified in issuing notice of termination of service of the petitioner. Shri Lodha further argued that by issuing writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, the court will not compel the respondents to act in breach of the provisions of statutory rules, which have been framed by the respondents in exercise of powers conferred by Section 18 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act. 1949. 10. I have given my serious consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot succeed on the plea of equitable or promisary estoppel. In view of my finding on the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner lacked the minimum academic qualification, which could make him eligible for appointment as A.S.I. Merely because on account of mistake/error/over-sight the petitioner has been selected and order of appointment has been issued in his favour, the petitioner cannot claim that he has acquired a right to hold the post.Nor can it be said by any element of justification that the respondents should be compelled to continue the petitioner in service, although he was not having the requisite academic qualification for the purpose of appointment on the date of issue of order of appointment. The decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Krishan's case (supra) and that of the Division Bench in Prahlad Kumar's case (supra) relate to admission matters. In the first case, the candidate was allowed to appear in the examination, although he lacked the minimum required percentage of attendance. The court held that once he had been allowed to appear in the examination, the respondent University was not entitled to withhold his examination. In the second case, the candidate was not having the requisite percentage of attendance. He was allowed to appear in the examination. The result was declared and after passage of long time, the University cancelled the examination. In that fact situation, the court invoked the principle of equitable estoppel and held that the University cannot now change the position of the petitioner. The principles laid down in these two cases cannot be applied in the case of employment to a public service. 11. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. It will however be open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy to claim damages from the respondents for any injury he might have suffered on account of his being allowed to appear in the examination and on account of order of appointment having been issued in his-favour. 12. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ Petition dismissed. *******