JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed in the matter of violation of the petitioner's fundamental right under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that after her due selection the petitioner was serving as Auxiliary Nursing Midwife (or short 'ANM') in the Directorate of Medical & Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. That the petitioner had to pass a departmental test for promotion for professional training course i.e. Lady Health Volunteer Course (for short 'LHV') conducted, by the Directorate, Medical & Health Department for a period of six months which she successfully passed vide order dated 3.3.92, Annex-1. The petitioner was initially admitted in the aforesaid training course at Kota but subsequently through a corrigendum she was transferred from Kota to Public Health Training Institute (PHTI), Jaipur vide Annex-2. The petitioner had passed the Gram Vinodini Examination equivalent to matriculation from Mahila Gram Vidyapeeth, Allahabad, in the year 1983. The petitioner thereafter passed Maha Vidushi Examination which is equivalent to Intermediate Examination from Mahila Gram Vidyapeeth, Allahabad. 3. That after having been recommended for promotional LHV training course, the petitioner was directed by the respondents to place the evidence regarding recommendation of the aforesaid examinations which she had passed and in pursuance of which she made a representation to the University of Rajasthan clarifying her position that Maha Vidushi Examination (with English subject) conducted by Mahila Gram Vidyapeeth, Prayag, is recognised by the University of Rajasthan, as equivalent to pre-university examination. 4. That while undergoing the training, petitioner was served with a copy of the letter dated 21st April, 1992 sent by the Additional Director (Training) Medical & Health Department to the Registrar, Rajasthan Nursing Council, Jaipur, whereby clarification was sought so as to ascertain the correct position as to whether the qualifications obtained by the petitioner of Gram Vinodini and Maha Vidushi from Allahabad University, could be given recognition in Rajasthan. In reply to the above quarry the Addl. Director, informed the Registrar, Rajasthan Nursing Council, Jaipur, stating, inter-alia, that the aforesaid examination of Maha Vidushi conducted by the Mahila Gram Vidyapeeth, Allahabad, is equivalent to pre-university examination of the University of Rajasthan. In reply to the above quarry the Addl. Director, informed the Registrar, Rajasthan Nursing Council, Jaipur, stating, inter-alia, that the aforesaid examination of Maha Vidushi conducted by the Mahila Gram Vidyapeeth, Allahabad, is equivalent to pre-university examination of the University of Rajasthan. Thereafter the respondents had also directed the petitioner to furnish an affidavit that she will not file any court case for settlement of any dispute regarding her services. 5. That to the utter dismay and surprise of the petitioner, after she had undergone and completed about five months of promotional training course of LHV as against the total requirement of six months' period for the said course, her training was suddenly discontinued vide the impugned order dated 1.8.92 (Annex-9) as a result of which the petitioner was completely deprived of the opportunity of completing the training course which she had already availed and for which she was unjustly deprived of by the respondents. It is the said impugned action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to complete her training course which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition on the grounds, inter-alia, that the impugned decision of the respondents in depriving the petitioner of opportunity to complete the remaining period of training course was grossly arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice, equity and fair-play. It has been contended by the petitioner that she was fully eligible and entitled to complete the promotional LHV training course in respect of which she possessed all necessary qualifications and to which she had already been admitted. 6. It has been contended by Shri Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioner at the bar, that the respondents were not justified in throwing out the petitioner from the training course without a proper enquiry and the impugned order dated 1.8.92 (Annex-9) had been passed at the back of the petitioner, thereby seriously prejudicing her service career. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the University of Rajasthan had issued a certificate dated 12th March, 1992 (Annex-7) with reference to the petitioner's letter dated 12.3.91, thereby informing the petitioner that Maha Vidushi (with English subject) conducted by Mahila Gram Vidyapeeth, Prayag, is recognised by the University of Rajasthan as equivalent to its pre-university examination. It was further contended by Shri Pareek that once having issued this certificate with due recommendation, it was not open to the respondents to plead to the contrary and that the principle of promissory estoppel is attracted to this case. In support of his contentions advanced at the bar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments of this Court as well as of Apex Court : 1. DBCWP N. 4723-4734/88, Kumari Tripta Bhatnaga and another v. University of Rajasthan and another, decided on 27.3.89 . 2. Santosh Kumari Sogna v. University of Ajmer, reported in 1989 (2) RLW 453 . 3. Suresh Pal and Others v. State of Haryana and others, reported in 1987 (2) SCC 445 . 7. In the matter of Kumari Tripta Bhatnagar v. University of Rajasthan (supra), the question which had arisen for consideration of the learned D.B. of this Court was in the context of the letter addressed to the Vice-Chancellor, Mahila Gram Vidyapeeth, Prayag by the Registrar of Rajasthan University, Jaipur. It was clarified by the Registrar that the examination conducted by Mahila Gram Vidyapeeth, Prayag, has been recognised by the University of Rajasthan as equivalent to pre-university examination on reciprocal basis. The students from Rajasthan University continued to appear in the examination of Maha Vidushi (with English subject) and the petitioners took admission in Maha Vidushi (Intermediate) in 1984 and passed both 1st Year as well as II Year examinations respectively. Thereafter, the petitioners received intimation from the Rajasthan University that a decision was taken to de-recognise the said degree. The petitioners sought direction from this Court to appear as private candidates in the Ist Year TDC/Pre-Degree Court in view of their apprehension that because of de-recognition of the aforesaid degree, they will not be allowed to appear as private candidates in the said course. The controversy which was involved for consideration of this Court was as to whether once having given due recognition to the aforesaid examination with effect from July, 1967, was it open to the University to de-recognise the same with effect from 21st July, 1986 to the detriment of the petitioner thereby jeopardising her academic career ? The controversy which was involved for consideration of this Court was as to whether once having given due recognition to the aforesaid examination with effect from July, 1967, was it open to the University to de-recognise the same with effect from 21st July, 1986 to the detriment of the petitioner thereby jeopardising her academic career ? This Court while allowing both the writ petitions, directed the University of Rajasthan to allow both the petitioners to appear as private candidates in the Pre-Degree Course Examination, 1989 which was to commence with effect from 26.4.89 with a further direction to the petitioners to submit their application-forms to the University of Ajmer within 7 days and the University to accept the applications and to allow the petitioners to appear in the examination of Pre-degree course as aforesaid. 8. In the matter of Santosh Kumari Sogna v. University of Ajmer (supra) similar question had arisen for consideration before this Court. It was held that once having given recognition to a particular examination, it was not open to the respondent-University to derecognise the same to the disadvantage of students in the midst of the course retrospectively. 9. Likewise in the matter of Suresh Pal and others v. State of Haryana and others (supra) the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was regarding recognition of a certificate course done by a candidate from a private institution and whether the said course could be given due recognition by the State of Haryana for appointment of the candidates to Government service of the State. On the basis of the said recognition by the State, the petitioners had joined the course but during the pursuance of the course by the petitioner in the mid-session, the course was de-recognised by the State Government rendering the certificates obtained by the petitioners useless which was to the disadvantage and detriment to the petitioners. In the circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court that it would be highly unjust to refuse to give recognition to the certificates obtained by the petitioners and while allowing the appeal and applying the principle of promissory estoppel the State of Haryana was directed to give due recognition to the same. In the circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court that it would be highly unjust to refuse to give recognition to the certificates obtained by the petitioners and while allowing the appeal and applying the principle of promissory estoppel the State of Haryana was directed to give due recognition to the same. It was further held that those persons who had joined the course after the date of de-recognition were not entitled to such benefit but de-recognition of the course could not be done retrospectively. 10. In response to the show-cause notice issued by this Court as to why the writ petition be not admitted and allowed, the respondents have not filed any reply till date despite service. By an interim order dated 25.2.92 passed by this Court, the operation of the impugned order dated 1.8.92 was stayed and the petitioner was allowed to continue in the remaining part of her training and to appear in the examination. Subsequently after completion of her training course, the petitioner appeared in the said examination at Jodhpur and the result of all candidates except the petitioner was declared in February, 1993 on the pretext of pendency of this writ petition. In pursuance of the directions of this Court dated 7.3.95 to intimate regarding the completion of training course as well as the result of the petitioner's examination in the sealed envelope, this Court has been informed that the petitioner has completed the course as well as has successfully passed the said examination conducted by the respondent. 11. During the course of hearing an application was filed by the Rajasthan Nursing Council to be impleded as a party-respondent to this writ petition and for vacation of interim order dated 25.9.92 under Article 226(3) of the Constitution contending, inter-alia that the UGC vide Circular dated 26th June, 1991 has declared that Mahila Gram Vidyapeeth to be a fake university and that ANMs who were working in the Department of Medical & Health of the State with minimum academic qualification of matriculation after acquiring promotional training course which is of six months duration will be eligible for promotion for the post of LHV under the scheme. It has been contended by Shri Anil Jain, learned counsel for the respondents that since the petitioner is only having qualification up to 10th Standard, the said qualification possessed by her is not recognised by the Department and, therefore, the admission which has already been given to her deserves to be cancelled. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and examined their rival claims and contentions and have perused the relevant documents on the record. I am of the considered opinion that once having permitted the petitioner to join the course and to pursue the same for a period of five months, definite assurance had been conveyed to the petitioner that she would be permitted to continue her remaining period of training course, as referred to above, and hence it would not be open to the respondents to deprive the petitioner of the facility offered to her at such a belated stage. I am further of the opinion that the principle of promissory estoppel is fully applicable to this case since the respondents have allowed the petitioner to continue the remaining part of her training and to appear in the aforesaid examination. The qualifications and the certificates possessed by the petitioner have been held as valid qualifications by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4723/88 (Kumari Tripta Bhatnagar v. University of Rajasthan decided on 7.3.89) . I am further of the opinion that the ratio of the aforesaid decision of this Court is fully applicable to this case and the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 13. It will be pertinent to mention regarding the letter dated 12th March, 1992 (Annex-7) wherein with reference to the petitioner's letter dated 12.3.91 she was informed that the examination conducted by Mahila Gram Vidyapeeth, Prayag, which she had passed was recognised by University of Rajasthan as equivalent to its pre-university examination. Once having accepted this position, it was not open to the respondents to resile from this stand at a later stage to the disadvantage of the petitioner particularly when the petitioner had already completed 5 months of training in the aforesaid course and only one month's period was left for her to complete the course. Once having accepted this position, it was not open to the respondents to resile from this stand at a later stage to the disadvantage of the petitioner particularly when the petitioner had already completed 5 months of training in the aforesaid course and only one month's period was left for her to complete the course. I am of the opinion that this attitude of the respondent is to be deprecated as the same is arbitrary, unjust and in violation of the principles of natural justice and is also violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 14. As a result of the above discussion, the writ petition is consequently allowed and the impugned order dated 1.8.92 (Annex-7) is quashed and set aside. Since the petitioner pursuant to the interim order dated 25.9.92 already completed' remaining period of her training and has passed the promotional LHV Training Course no further directions are necessary in this regard. The respondents are accordingly directed to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner which may be admissible to her in accordance with the Rules while treating the petitioner as in-service candidate and also to release her salary dues, if any and if so with-held by the respondents.Writ Petition Allowed. *******