JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. - Petitioners were the Defence personnel who after serving the Nation for more than five years have been discharged from service in accordance with the terms of the contract. 2. They were appointed as Sergents in the Air Force. Petitioner No. 1 entered the service on 22.5.1975 and was discharged on 31.5.1990, on completion of the term of the engagement. 3. Petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 6.6.1975 and was discharged on 30.6.1990. He has been awarded in trade proficiency "Exceptional and exemplary certificate." 4. After discharge from service petitioners had to find out some other source of employment. They found an advertisement issued on 22.7.1989 in "Employment News" calling for the applications for selection to the posts of U.P. Combined State Services. 5. According to the advertisement, all the applications, complete in all respects, were to reach the Secretary (Department No. A-1/89-90) Public Service Commission, U.P., 10 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Allahabad by 2.9.1989 by 5 p.m. 6. In pursuance of the advertisement the petitioners, who are Ex-servicemen having rendered more than 5 years of service, applied in the year 1989 for appearing in the examination. 7. On the date of the application the petitioner No. 1 was less than 32 years of age and the petitioner No. 2 was less than 31 years of age. 8. After the application forms were submitted by the petitioners, they were scrutinised by the Commission. Call letters were issued to them permitting them to appear in the Combined State Service Examination which commenced from January, 1990 and ended in February, 1990. They appeared in the competitive written examination. They did well. They were called for the Interview. 9. On 12.3.1991 interview letters were issued directing the petitioners to appear for personal interview test on 22.3.1991 at the Commission office. Accordingly they presented themselves on 22.3.1991 for interview. They remained waiting for their turn to be called for interview. All of a sudden at about 1.00 p.m. they were handed over the orders dated 22.3.1991 passed by the Under-Secretary stating that they would not be permitted to appear before the Interview Board as they did not come under the category of "Ex-servicemen" and their applications were not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Their candidature was not proper. 10. The present writ petition is directed against the two orders dated 22.3.1991. 11. Their candidature was not proper. 10. The present writ petition is directed against the two orders dated 22.3.1991. 11. On 25.3.1991 this Court permitted the petitioners to appear in the interview test provisionally. Thereafter on 22.7.1991 a fresh order was passed directing the commission to declare the result within 10 days of the production of a certified copy of the order but the result could not be declared on account of certain difficulties. 12. In the meantime counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and the case has come up for final hearing before me. 13. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bindo Misra appearing on behalf of the commission. 14. The first point to be taken into consideration is whether the petitioners fall under the category of "Ex-servicemen" or not. 15. The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel and Administrative Records, New Delhi vide its notification No. 390916/10/79-Estt. (C) New Delhi dated 15.12.1979, has in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India framed rules known as "Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services & Posts) Rules, 1979". The relevant rules for the purposes of the present case runs as follows :- "2. Definitions in these rules, unless the context otherwise requires :- (a) "Armed Forces, of the Union" means the Naval, Military and Air Forces of the Union. (b) "Disabled Ex-servicemen" means as ex-servicemen who while serving the Armed Forces of the Union was disabled in operations against the enemy or in disturbed areas. Definitions in these rules, unless the context otherwise requires :- (a) "Armed Forces, of the Union" means the Naval, Military and Air Forces of the Union. (b) "Disabled Ex-servicemen" means as ex-servicemen who while serving the Armed Forces of the Union was disabled in operations against the enemy or in disturbed areas. (c) "Ex-servicemen" means a person, who has served in any work (whether as a combatant or as non-combatant) in the Armed Forces of the Union, including the Armed Forces of the former Indian States but excluding the Assam Rifles, Defence Security Corps, General Reserve Engineering Force, Lok Sahak Sena and Territorial Army, for a continuous period of not less than six months after attestation and :- (i) has been released, otherwise than at his own request or by way of dismissal or discharge on account of misconduct or inefficiency or has been transferred to the reserve pending Such release, or (ii) has to serve for not more than six months for completing the period of service requisite for becoming entitled to be released or transferred to the reserve as aforesaid, or (iii) has been released at his own request after completing five years service in the Armed Forces of the Union." In connection with the relaxation of the age the Government of India has taken a decision in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission vide reference No. 39016/15/79-Estt.(C) Government of India. Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel, New Delhi dated 7.9.1981 and it runs as follows : (i) The upper age limit shall be relaxed by the length of military service increased by three years in the case of ex-servicemen and commissioned officers including ECOs/SSCOs for appointment to any vacancy in Group "A" and Group "B" service/posts filled by direct recruitment otherwise than on the results of an open All India Competitive Examination held by the U.P. Public Service Commission subject to the condition that (i) the continuous service rendered in the Armed Forces by an ex-serviceman is not less than six months after attestation and (ii) that resultant age after deducting his period of service from his actual age does not exceed the prescribed age limit by more than three years and also subject to usual conditions which have been prescribed in respect of appointment of ex-servicemen in Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts vide this Department's notification No. 39016/10/179 Estt. (C) dated 15.12.1979. (C) dated 15.12.1979. (ii) For appointment to any vacancy in Group 'A" and Group 'B' services/posts filled by direct recruitment oil the results of an All India Competitive Examination held by UPSC the ex-servicemen and Commissioned Officers including ECOs/SSCOs who have rendered at least five years military service and have been released on completion of assignment (including those assignments is due to be completed within six months) otherwise than by way of dismissal or discharge on account of misconduct or inefficient, or on account of physical disability attributable to military service or on invalidment shall be allowed maximum relaxation of five years in the upper age limit." The phrase "Ex-servicemen" has been defined in the Rules of 1979. In advertisement issued by the Commission had a clause regarding age relexation. (1) For general candidates the minimum age, as on 1.7.1989, has been fixed 21 years and the maximum 30 years. The maximum prescribed age limit has been relaxed upto a maximum of 5 years for candidates belonging to SC/ST/Backward/ dependents of Freedom Fighters of U.P. and physical handicapped persons. (2) This age relaxation was also to apply in the case of Emergency Commissioned Officers/Short Service Commissioned Officers/Ex-servicemen who have rendered at least 5 years of service in the Defence Service. (3) This relaxation was also available to those Defence Service Officers who were due to be released within six months from the last date of the receipt of the applications provided that their total service period was not less than 5 years. (4) The five years relaxation period was also made available to efficient players of qualified games in accordance with Government Order No. 22/21/1963/Karmik-2 dated 26.11.1985. (i) For general candidates the minimum age has been fixed 21 years and maximum 30 years as on 1.7.1989. (ii) The maximum prescribed age limit has been relaxed up to 5 years for - (a) Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe/Backward/Dependent of Freedom Fighter. (b) Emergency Commissioned Officer/Short Service Commissioned Officer/Ex-serviceman. (iii) Ex-servicemen who have put in 5 years of service and they have been released within six months from the last date of receipt of the application which was fixed as 2.9.1989. 16. Both the petitioners had put in 5 years of service. The petitioner No. 1 was to be released from service on 31.5.1990 and the petitioner No. 2 on 30.6.1990. 16. Both the petitioners had put in 5 years of service. The petitioner No. 1 was to be released from service on 31.5.1990 and the petitioner No. 2 on 30.6.1990. Hence, both the petitioners have been discharged after more than six months from the last date of receipt of the application. 17. According to the Commission the petitioners do not fulfil the eligibility condition of being released within six months from the last date of receipt of the application. On this point their candidatures were rejected. The said conditions were imposed in terms of the Government Order dated 28.2.85. 18. The important point to be considered in this case is whether fixing of six months' time from the last date of submission of the application has any nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The Commission has not come forward with any material on record nor has said anything to justify the said reservation made in the advertisement. The commission has created two classes :- (i) who were going to be released within six months from the last date of receipt of the application; (iii) who were going to be released after six months. 19. The law is well settled that there can be classification or setting up different class but the classification be such that it can be upheld by the Court. The classification must be on some rational basis. The distinction made between one class and another must be such as much as intelligible and the classification also must have a direct nexus with the object intended to be achieved. In the absence of any material on record I am, satisfied that the restriction of six months from the last date of submission of the application form is not based on any rational reasons nor was a matter of administrative convenience. The Commission has miserably failed to justify the said restriction. Accordingly, I am of the view that it was wholly arbitrary and the candidature of the petitioners could not have been rejected on that ground. 20. Will the principle of promissory estoppel or equitable estoppel not be applicable in the instant case ? 21. In pursuance of the advertisement the petitioners submitted their application forms duly filled in. They were scrutinised by the Commission and were found to be in order. The petitioners were permitted to appear in the written examination. They qualified. 20. Will the principle of promissory estoppel or equitable estoppel not be applicable in the instant case ? 21. In pursuance of the advertisement the petitioners submitted their application forms duly filled in. They were scrutinised by the Commission and were found to be in order. The petitioners were permitted to appear in the written examination. They qualified. They were called for the personal Interview but on that date they were restrained from appearing before the Interview Board on the ground that they were not eligible. If the Commission authorities acquiesced to the infirmities, if at all there was any, in the application forms and allowed the petitioners to appear in the written examination, then it was not open to the Commission to reject the candidatures of the petitioners at this late stage. It was bound by the principles of promissory and equitable estoppel. 22. The Principles of promissory estoppel is based on sound reasons. Where one party has, by his words or conduct, made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be accepted upon by the other party, the promise would be binding on the party making it, and he would not be entitled to go back, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties. This would be so irrespective of whether there is any pre-existing relationship between the parties or not. 23. The principle of equitable estoppel has been evolved by the Courts for doing justice by the promise of honesty and good faith. There is no justification why it would be given only a limited application by way of defence. This doctrine comes into play with greater force when equity so requires. In the case of Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, ( AIR 1976 SC 376 ) almost a similar controversy arose. There is no justification why it would be given only a limited application by way of defence. This doctrine comes into play with greater force when equity so requires. In the case of Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, ( AIR 1976 SC 376 ) almost a similar controversy arose. In that case it was observed :- "Once the candidate was allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the Statute which empowers to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the applicant cannot be refused admission subsequently if any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the applicant permission to appear." The view taken by the Supreme Court in the above case was followed by this court in the case of Tarkeshwar Lal v. University of Gorakhpur, (Writ Petition No. 1209 of 1979) decided on 26.4.1978. Against this judgment an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court. The Court took the view that no question of estoppel could arise against the University if permission to examination was obtained on misrepresentation and the order of the High Court was set aside. But the effect of the judgment in the case of Shri Krishan (supra) has not been taken away. There is no dispute that the principle of equitable estoppel will not come into play if the person claiming it has played fraud or any misrepresentation, Estoppel is a rule of equity and hence two well known maxim of equity will apply - (1) he who seeks equity must do equity, (2) he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. This sound principle has been enunciated in a number of cases by the Supreme Court as well as other Courts. Reference may be made to AIR 1968 SC 718 , Union of India v. M/s. Anglo Afghan Agencies etc., AIR 1971 SC 1021 Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council; AIR 1976 SC 2237 ; Excise Commissioner, U.P. v. Ram Kumar; AIR 1979 SC 621 M/s. Motilal Oadampat Sugar Mills v. Stale of U.P., AIR 1986 SC 872 ; Express Newspaper v. Union of India. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council; AIR 1976 SC 2237 ; Excise Commissioner, U.P. v. Ram Kumar; AIR 1979 SC 621 M/s. Motilal Oadampat Sugar Mills v. Stale of U.P., AIR 1986 SC 872 ; Express Newspaper v. Union of India. In the case reported in 1985(2) SLR 479 (SC) : AIR 1985 (SC) 941 , Surya Narain Yadav v. Bihar Electricity Board, while dealing with the question of promissory estoppel it was observed that the courts must do justice by the promotion of honesty and good faith as far as it lies in their powers. This principles is equally applicable not only on the Government but on public bodies as well. The same view was taken in the earlier cases of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. (supra) and M/s. Motilal Oadampat Sugar Mills (supra). 25. In the instant case I am satisfied that the Commission is estopped from cancelling the candidature of the petitioners at the stage of interview. 26. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission was directed to produce the record particularly the result sheet. A sealed envelope was produced before me. It was opened in the presence of Sri Vinod Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission. It was found that both the petitioners have qualified in the written test as well as in the interview. They became entitled for the appointment. 27. Since the result sheet produced before me shows that the petitioners have qualified and are entitled to be appointed, technicalities may not be permitted to strangulate the throat of justice. In view of the discussion done in the preceding paragraphs, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Both the orders dated 22.3.1991 are quashed. The respondents are directed to declare the result within a period of two weeks from today treating the petitioners as ex-servicemen. 28. The respondent No. 1 is directed to recommended the names of the petitioners for appointment in order of preference within a period of one month from the date of declaration. It is expected that the Government will issue orders of appointment to both the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of communication by the commission to it.