JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. 1. In the instant case I am satisfied that the combined merit list, for admission to two different institutes, prepared by the opposite parties for the academic year 1993-94 is wholly arbitrary. 2. The Government and its instrumentality while passing even an administrative order can never be permitted to be irrational or unreasonable. If it departs from such standard or norms in any case, its action would be liable to be struck down as arbitrary. It has always to meet the test of reasonableness and public interest. No doubt some-times the administrative orders are discretionary in nature but that does not give a lever to the authorities to be fanciful in their choice. The problem of administrative discretion is a complex one. It is true that the Government cannot function without the exercise of some discretion by the officials. It is necessary not only for the individualization of the administrative power but also because it is humanly impossible to lay down a rule for every conceiveable eventuality in the complex art of modern government. It is equally true that absolute discretion is a ruthless master. It is more destructive of freedom than any of man's other inventions. The administrative orders are experted to foe reasonable and fait' in the oyes of public to ensure the rule of law and to prevent failure of justice. The instrumentality of the Government is not expected to behave like a private litigant. It should act in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms. These elements are missing in the present case. 3. The Department of Tourism, U. P. has established two Government institutions of Hotel Management, Catering Technology and Applied Nutrition. One is at Almora and the other at Dehradun. They have separate management and different prospectus. They have their full control over day-to day affairs. Only general poliicy decisions and financial aspects are controlled by the State Government. 4. Each institution holds its separate examination and interview for admission. In the month of April, 1993 an advertisement was issued in the "Employment News" inviting application forms from the candidates desirous of taking admission in the said institutions. 5. The petitioner having passed C.B.S.C. Board examination (Class XII) in the year 1991, which is the minimum requisite qualification, submitted his application form for admission in Almora college. In the month of April, 1993 an advertisement was issued in the "Employment News" inviting application forms from the candidates desirous of taking admission in the said institutions. 5. The petitioner having passed C.B.S.C. Board examination (Class XII) in the year 1991, which is the minimum requisite qualification, submitted his application form for admission in Almora college. This; was done by him in accordance with the advertisement, which made it clear that the applicants shall apply only to those colleges where they want to be admitted. 6. Paragraph 6 of the advertisement made it clear that the candidates will be considered for admission only to that college for which they have made application, but, casually it was also mentioned that the Commissioner/ Director General shall have a right to decide as to in which institution a particular candidate would be admitted. This is self-contradictory and inconsistent. Both cannot co -exist. A careful reading of the said clause shows that a candidate has a free choice of his admission in dither of the two colleges for which he has made the application. Reserving the right in the Commissioner/Director General of sending the selected candidate to any institution renders the whole clause redundant. Had there been a combined test for both the colleges, then of course, it could have been said that he had the power to admit a candidate according to his choice. 7. A fair and proper interpretation of this clause leads to an irresistible conclusion that it is only the candidate who has the choice of admission in a particular college. 8. After the written examination, the petitioner was required to appear for the interview on 28th September, (993 at Almora In the prospectus it was provided that out of total 25 sanctioned seats, 13 shall be reserved for hill candidates and six seats have been reserved for Freedom Fighters, Ex- servicemen and Physically handicapped. Petitioner's father is an Ex-serviceman. He held the rank of Seargent in the Indian Air Force. He has retired from service in the year 1981. The petitioner claimed the benefit of reservation being the dependant of Ex-service roan, Even the application form, which has been filled in by him, mentioned that he was the dependant of Ex-service man. After scrutiny no objection was raised by the opposite parties that he did not belong to the reseved category. The petitioner claimed the benefit of reservation being the dependant of Ex-service roan, Even the application form, which has been filled in by him, mentioned that he was the dependant of Ex-service man. After scrutiny no objection was raised by the opposite parties that he did not belong to the reseved category. He was permitted to appear in the examination. 9. When the result was dsclared on 11th October, 1993 the petitioner found that 15, out of 25, selected candidates did not at all participate in the written examination nor they had filled in the form for Almora college. It appears that those 15 candidates appeared at Dehradun college. 10. Admittedly there was no combined entrance test nor a common interview. Had there been a notice for holding a combined test for. both the colleges, then of course the stand of the opposite party would have been justified in preparing a combined merit list but since the advertisement shows that separate entrance examination was to be held, so only those candidates would be considered for admission at Almora college who appeared for examination from that college. The candidates who had appeared for the examination heid by Almora college had to answer one set of questions while the candidates who had appeared in the examination held by Dehradun college had to answer different set of questions There is reason to believe that there was some difference and disparity in examination of these two colleges. The opposite parties could not prepare a common select list for the two different colleges when they held separate examinations. 11. Will the principle of promissory estoppel or equitable estoppel not be applicable in the instant case In pursuance to the advertisement in "Employment News" the petitioner submitted his application form duly filled In mentioning the institution where he sought to be admitted. The forms were scrutinised by the institution and were found to be in order. The petitioner was permitted to appear in the written examination. He qualified but at no point of time he was ever told that it was the choice of the Government to admit him to any institution irrespective of the fact that choice was mentioned in the advertisement. The petitioner was permitted to appear in the written examination. He qualified but at no point of time he was ever told that it was the choice of the Government to admit him to any institution irrespective of the fact that choice was mentioned in the advertisement. If the respondent No 1 acquiesced to the said infirmity in the advertisement and allowed the petitioner to appear for admission at Almora college, then it was not open for the opposite party no. 1 to deny admission to the petitioner to that college. He was bound by the promissory and equitable estoppel. 12. This principle of estoppel its based on sound reasons. Where one party has, by his words or conduct, made to the other a clear and unquivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in future, knowing or intending that it would be accepted upon by the other party, the promises would be binding on the party making It, and he would not be entitled to go back, as it wonld be inequitable to allow him to do so. The principle of equitable estoppel has been evolved by the courts for doing justice by promotion 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 demands. This well established principle has been considered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Shri Krishna v. Kurukshetra Uuivcsity. Kurukshetra, AIR 1976 SC 376 ; M/s. Motiial Oadampat Sugar Mills v. State of (J, P., AIR 1979 SC 621 , and Express Newspaper v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872 . 13. Relying upon above decisions in another case, Surya Narain Yadav v. Bihar Elertricity Board, 1985 (3) SCC 38 , while dealing with the question of promissory estoppel, it was observed that the courts must do justice by promotion of honesty and good faith as far as it lies in their power. This principle is equally applicable not only on the Government but on Public Bodies is well. The same view was earlier taken in the case of Century Spinning and, Manufacturing Col Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council, AIR 1971 SC 1021 ; and M/s. Motilal Oadampat Sugar Mills (supra). 14. This principle is equally applicable not only on the Government but on Public Bodies is well. The same view was earlier taken in the case of Century Spinning and, Manufacturing Col Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council, AIR 1971 SC 1021 ; and M/s. Motilal Oadampat Sugar Mills (supra). 14. Accordingly I am of the view that the opposite party no. I is estopped now from denying admission to the petitioner at Almora college. He cannot be compelled to seek admission at Dehradun college The combined merit list (select list) prepared by the opposite parties for the academic year 1993-94 is without jurisdiction. The petitioner further claimed a seat against the reserved quota of Ex-service man being the son of an Ex-service man. 15. The objection raised in the counter affidavit was that there was reservation only for the Ex-servicemen and not for their dependants. This objection is untenable. 16. The advertisement, on the basis of which the examination was held, showed that on 30th June, 1993 a candidate applying for admission should have been between 14 to 22 years at age. Could an Ex-service man be between the age of 14 and 22 years ? No. A person is appointed in Government service after he attains majority. Obviously the clause indicates that the reservation has been made for the dependants of Ex-servicemen and not for the Ex-servicemen themselves. It is unfair on the part of the State or to raise such a frivolous objection. It has planed itself in a worse position than a cunning litigant. Administrative orders are expected to be fair. If it falls short of this requirement, then it is bound to be struck down as held by the Supreme Court in the cases Ramana Dayaram, Shetty v. The International Air-Port Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628 Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1988 SC 1992 and Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147 . 17. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and giving my anxious thoughts over the matter I am of the view that the opposite parties had no jurisdiction to prepare a combined merit list of two different institutions which held the examinations separately. The petitioner was entitled for the benefit of reservation of one seat, out of six, being the dependant of an Ex-service man. 18. The petitioner was entitled for the benefit of reservation of one seat, out of six, being the dependant of an Ex-service man. 18. Accordingly I direct the opposite parties nos. I and 2 to admit the petitioner in Almora college in the relevant course for the academic year 1993-94 giving him the benefit of being the dependant of Ex-service man and treating him to be belonging,' to the reserved category. This writ petition succeeds and is allowed without any order as to cost. Petition allowed.