JUDGMENT 1. - It is alleged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition that he was initially appointed to the post of Research Assistant in the Department of Agriculture, Government of Rajasthan. It is also alleged that he was promoted from the post of Research Assistant to the post of Assistant Cotton Botanist w.e.f. 31.3.76. According to the allegations made in para No. 3 of the writ petition he proceeded to join services in the respondent University of Udaipur on 15.4.76. He was taken by the respondent University in the pay scale of Rs. 375-850 but later on with the revision of the salary of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Cotton Botanist w.e.f. 1.9.76, the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 990/- in the pay scale of Rs. 750-1350/-. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the petitioner is being paid the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 750-1350 but he is entitled to be paid in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 being revised pay scale for the post of Assistant Professor fixed by the University Grant Commission. 3. It is alleged in para No. 7 of writ petition that the petitioner being oblivious of the correct legal position regarding his status in the respondent University and regarding the fact whether the respondent University is right in inviting the applications from Assistant Professors like the petitioner for the posts, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor and Associate Professor. However, it is made clear that this was done by the petitioner under protest which is apparent from Anx. 3 to the writ petition. 4. The respondent University had filed the counter affidavit and in para 3 of its reply the respondent University has clearly made the following averments:- ''That the allegations mentioned in para 3 of the writ petition are not denied.'' As a matter of fact in para No. 3 of the writ petition the petitioner has clearly asserted that he proceeded to join services in the respondent University on 15.4.76 and he was initially given the pay scale of Rs. 375-850 but later on with the revision of salary of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Cotton Botanist w.e.f. 1.9.76 the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 990/- in the pay scale of Rs. 750-1350. 5. 375-850 but later on with the revision of salary of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Cotton Botanist w.e.f. 1.9.76 the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 990/- in the pay scale of Rs. 750-1350. 5. The main trust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri R.N. Upadhyay is that in pursuance of Anx. 1 dated 27.12.75 the Governor/Chancellor of the respondent University was pleaded to order that all research activities including the fundamental, applied, operational and adaptive research be transferred from the Agricultural Department to the respondent University of Udaipur w.e.f. 1.1.76. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention at page 32 of the paper book where by virtue of Anx. 1 to the petitioner he would become Assistant Professor of the respondent University. As a matter of fact the Governor/Chancellor of the respondent University had formulated norms of equation of post under Government to the posts in the respondent University for the purpose of initial integration with a view to achieve integration of the Government servants into cadres of the respondent University. 7. A perusal of Anx. 1 reveals that a Government servant whose services were transferred from research wing to the respondent University their status in the respondent University for the purposes of integration of the Government servants into the cadre of the respondent University is to be decided on the basis of pay scale payable to them at the time of transfer. As mentioned in earlier part of my judgment the assertions made in para No. 3 of the writ petition regarding the pay scale payable to the petitioner at the time of transfer is not disputed, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be absorbed into the cadre of the respondent University as an Assistant Professor and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable to me. 8. In reply to the aforesaid argument raised on behalf of the petitioner the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent University Shri D.R. Bhandari invited my attention to section 3 of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (S.A.) Act, 1974 (in short 'the Act of 1974'). 8. In reply to the aforesaid argument raised on behalf of the petitioner the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent University Shri D.R. Bhandari invited my attention to section 3 of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (S.A.) Act, 1974 (in short 'the Act of 1974'). According to which notwithstanding anything contained in the relevant law as from the commencement of this Act, no teacher and no officer in any university in Rajasthan shall be appointed except on the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted under section 4 of the said Act. 9. In support of the aforesaid contention the learned counsel for the respondent University placed reliance on a decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of University of Rajasthan v. Dr. Rukhmani Vaish & Ors., reported in 1982 RLR 164 . I have carefully gone through the decision relied by the learned counsel for the respondent University. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid judgment leads towards an irresistible conclusion that the said decision is not applicable in the present set of circumstances of the case where the State Government has taken a policy decision to abolish the research wing and place the services of the research wing at the disposal of the respondent University. In my humble opinion in a democratic country like ours the affairs of the State of Rajasthan is to be managed by the elected representatives of the people and if such policy decision is taken which cannot be assailed on constitutional ground then the court of law has no justification to go against the policy decision. In the instant case the State Government had taken a policy decision to abolish the post of research wing and transfer the services of the employees of research wing to the respondent University. Such policy decision taken by the State Government is within the framework of our Constitution therefore it would not be proper to go behind the policy decision taken by the State. 10. The emphasis of the learned counsel for the respondent University is that according to Section 3 of the Act No. 18 of 1974, the petitioner cannot be allowed to function as Assistant Professor in the respondent University except on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted under Section 4. 10. The emphasis of the learned counsel for the respondent University is that according to Section 3 of the Act No. 18 of 1974, the petitioner cannot be allowed to function as Assistant Professor in the respondent University except on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted under Section 4. The aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the respondent University in fallacious and is not acceptable to me for the reasons that the petitioner is not directly appointed as Assistant Professor in the University under the Act No. 18 of 1974 but he is being absorbed due to the policy decision taken by the State Government transferring the services of the petitioner from the research wing to the respondent University. 11. It is undisputed that in pursuance of the decision taken by the Governor/Chancellor the petitioner has joined the respondent University, therefore, in my humble opinion the doctrine of promissory estoppel is attracted in the present case. Once the Government has given undertaking by formulating the norms under Anx. 1 they cannot be allowed to act contrary to Anx. 1 which is a policy decision taken by the Government. 12. The doctrine of promissory estopped is evolved by equity to avoid injustice, therefore, neither it is in the realm of contract nor in the realm of estoppel. The true principle of promissory estoppel seems to be that where one party has by his words are 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 acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact acted upon by the other party, the promise so made would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the dealings which has taken place between the parties. 13. In the instant case having regard to the dealings between the petitioner and the respondent University which has taken place between them is binding and no one will be allowed to retract from their position once the petitioner acted upon and joined the respondent University in pursuance of Anx. 1. 14. 13. In the instant case having regard to the dealings between the petitioner and the respondent University which has taken place between them is binding and no one will be allowed to retract from their position once the petitioner acted upon and joined the respondent University in pursuance of Anx. 1. 14. As a matter of fact the principle of promissory estoppel is evolved by courts of law for doing justice between the parties and there is no reason why it should be given only a limited application by way of defence. There is no reason or logic or principle why promissory estoppel should also be not available as a cause of action if necessary to satisfy the equity and imparting justice between the parties. 15. My aforesaid view is buttressed by a decision rendered by apex court in case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 621. In the aforesaid judgment their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically ruled that the rules of the promissory estoppel should also be made applicable to the government. The respondent University falls within the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and being instrumentality of State the provision of promissory estoppel is also applicable to it.As a result of the aforementioned discussion the instant writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as a permanent Assistant Professor in the Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding with all consequential benefits of a permanent Assistant Professor including the salary and other benefits attached to the post of Assistant Professor of the University. Both the parties are directed to break their own costs. *******