Judgment B. L. Yadav, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to publish his result of the Teachers training Course (1986-88 session) commencing from 20th September, 1988 at Chotanagpur Primary Teachers Training College, Main Road, Ranchi-1 and to direct the respondents to pay reasonable compensation to him for inordinate delay in publishing the result on flimsy ground. 2. The petitioner has passed his High School in 1986 and a certificate was issued indicating his date of birth as 11th July, 1970. He applied for admission in the Teachers Training Course in the said institution. His application form which contained the date of birth was approved and he was admitted in the said institution in the session 1986-88. He completed 2-years Teachers Training Course and filled up the form which was forwarded by Respondent No.3 the Principal of Chhotanagpur Primary Teachers training College, Ranchi. After scrutiny of the form submitted by the petitioner, admit card was issued to him in which the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 11th July, 1970 thereafter the petitioner appeared in the said examination and was shown successful having secured Ist division but the result was shown having been withheld as the petitioner was under age. As the scrutiny was made by the respondents at all level when the form was filled up and also the admit card was issued, the petitioner did not state incorrect facts. Hence after complying with the entire procedure the petitioner was issued admit card and once the same was issued the respondents were estopped from withholding the result of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was under age by 11 days. In case there was any such thing the same could have been detected at the stage of submission of the form or issuance of the admit card. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the doctrine of promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel or quasi estoppel would apply as there was deliberate promise made by the respondents for admissions to the said teachers training course (1986-88 session) in the said institution and the petitioner filled up the form for admission showing his date of birth as llth July, 1970. The said initial form was accepted and the examination form was also accepted and the particulars furnished by the petitioner, including the date of birth, were accepted to be correct The admit card (Annexure-2) was issued to petitioner showing his date of birth as 11th July, 1970 and the petitioner having appeared in the said examination the promise made by the respondents has affected the legal relationship of the petitioner. He completed the course and having appeared in the said examination and even having been shown as passed in Ist Division, it would be inequitable if the promisor is not bound when the promisee has acted on the said promise and has changed his position by pursuing bis studies for 2 years in the said course. In such matter the promisor is bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel or quasi estoppel. The impugned order (annexure-3 to the writ petition) has the effect of withholding the result of the petitioner which was manifestly erroneous. It was further submitted that once a student has been admitted even though by inadvertance of the principal of authority of any college and there being no fraud on the part of the student and he was allowed to appear at the examination there was no justification to withhold the publication of the result Reliance was placed on Shri Krishna v. The Kurukshetra University, A. I. R.1976 S. C.376, and Rajendra Prasad mathur V/s. Karnataka University and another, A. I. R.1986 S. C.1448. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand urged that the impugned order withholding the result was perfectly correct and the petitioner was under age by 11 days. Hence he was incorrectly issued admit card and the result has correctly been withheld and the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable and the petitioner has no legs to stand. 5. Having scrutinised the submission of the learned counsel for the parties the short question for our determination is as to whether promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel or quasi-estoppel was applicable and as to whether on account of culpable negligence of the respondents the result of the petitioner was withheld for more than 6 years and his future career was put to jeopardy and under these facts whether some compensation can be awarded. As regards the first point suffice is to say that the doctrine of promissory estoppel being suspensive in nature in the sense that it does not extinguish the obligation as the offer for admission was made by the respondents in the said institution and the petitioner made application for being admitted to the said course in the said institution and filled up the requisite form indicating his date of birth as 11th July, 1979. That being accepted, the petitioner took admission and changed his position by spending his time and energy and also he spent considerable amount in pursuing his studies in the said course for about two years and thereafter even the admit card was issued on the basis of the examination form and the petitioner appeared at the said examination and was declared successful in ist Division. Hence in such a situation the doctrine of promissory estoppel or equitable estoppel would apply against the respondents in withholding the results and the respondents are estopped from issuing the said impugned order indicating that the result of the petitioner could not be published for one reason or the other. In Rajendra Prasad Mathur v Karnataka University, (supra) it was observed by the Apex Court that in case the fault lies with the Engineering College in admitting the appellant even though this could be subsequently discovered that the appellant was not eligible for admission but deposited the fee and was admitted and granted admission, there is no reason that the appellant should suffer for the negligence of the Management of the College. This observation equally applies to the present case and there appears no reason as to why petitioners result has been withheld even though the petitioner did not commit any fraud nor concealed his date of birth which was shown at the time of filing up the initial form and also subsequent form for examination. A bare perusal of the admit card (Annexure-2) would indicate that the petitioner has given the date of birth as 11.7.1970. In our opinion, the respondents are bound by Doctrine of promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel and they can recite from the stand taken by them in issuing the admit card and permitting the petitioner to appear in the said examination. 6. In our opinion, the respondents are bound by Doctrine of promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel and they can recite from the stand taken by them in issuing the admit card and permitting the petitioner to appear in the said examination. 6. There appears culpable negligence on the part of the respondents in not declaring the result of the petitioner for no rhyme and reason rather in violation of the settled principles of law, the result of the petitioner was withhold and the petitioner has suffered great loss, which deserves to be compensated in terms of money Under these circumstances we are of the opinion that a compensation for a sum of Rs 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand) must be awarded to the petitioner payable by the respondents through Bank Draft or cheque in the name of the petitioner positively by 31st January, 1995. 7. In view of the premises aforesaid the present petition succeeds and is allowed with cost and the impugned order (Annexure-3) is quashed. The respondents are directed to publish the result of the petitioner for teachers training course (1986-88 session) within a period of two weeks from the date on which the certified copy of this order is furnished. Respondents 1 and 2 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand) to the petitioner by Bank Draft or a cheque in the name of the petitioner positively by 31st January, 1995. Petition Allowed.