Honble YADAV, J.–In these writ petitions common question of law and facts are involved, therefore, I think it proper and convenient to dispose off all these writ petitions by a composite order treating S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1121 of 1996 as leading case. (2). In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are claiming themselves to be entitled to be qualified to be appointed on the posts of Laboratory Technicians after completing their nine months practical training at different centres recognised by the Government. The aforesaid claims of the petitioners are based on common cause of action arising out and flowing from a decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5135 of 1993 decided on 4.8.1994 (1). (3). The detailed facts given hereinafter would reveal that Government of India advised the State Government to open its avenues for vocational education covered under the Apprenticeship Act. The three private Institutions in Rajasthan i.e. Ojiyanta Educational Trust, Kuchaman City, Sahara Education Trust, Deedwana District Nagaur Rajputana Educational Institution, Bhilwara and one Govt. Chopra Higher Secondary School, Bikaner in Rajasthan volunteered to provide such a training and applied to the State Council of Rajasthan seeking permission for such a course from the Session 1989-90. It is not disputed before me that the Government of India had granted approval for starting vocational courses in four subjects, viz. (i) Co-opera- tive, (ii) Library and Information Science, (iii) Pharmacy and (iv) Nursing. It is revealed that the State Government was not to provide any aid to these three private Trusts named above and these three private Trusts were to obtain recognition from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. The aforesaid three private Institutions run and maintained by above named three private Trusts after taking recognition from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer started aforesaid vocational courses 10+2 in its respective Higher Secondary Schools. (4). A reference is made in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that the petitioners are claiming the aforesaid reliefs mentioned hereinabove flowing from the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in Prem Adhar Gaur & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2). The operative portion of the aforesaid judgment reads thus:- ``12. (4). A reference is made in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that the petitioners are claiming the aforesaid reliefs mentioned hereinabove flowing from the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in Prem Adhar Gaur & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2). The operative portion of the aforesaid judgment reads thus:- ``12. This petition is thus allowed with a direction to the respondents to give to the petitioners the same treatment in respect of training as well as in the conduct of the examination which was given to 65 students later. The arrangements for the training course may be made by the respondents in the hospitals where such facilities are available and the Board shall conduct their examination as per Rules, so that the petitioners and those mentioned in the Schedule `A complete their course and training as well as qualify their examination. I am taking this view in peculiar situation and circumstances of this case since the petitioners have been crying for their rights ever since the year 1989, and a considerable period has been lost in the process. Any observation or decision made in this case shall not be a precedent in any other case since the view is being taken on account of extreme hardship which the petitioners have undergone as narrated above in this order. There will be no order as to costs. (5). It is averred in the additional reply filed on behalf of the respondents that the aforesaid institutions who volunteered to impart vocational courses 10+2 had no adequate facilities for practical training of Medical Laboratory Technicians (for short `MLT) in their institutions, therefore, those students who were prosecuting their studies in 10+2 for MLT were allowed to undergo practical training of Laboratory Technicians in the recognised Government Hospitals where such facilities were available under the order of this Court. It is pertinent to mention here that those students who had passed vocational course in MLT 10+2 examination and those students who were declared unsuccessful in the said examination were allo- wed to undergo practical training of Laboratory Technicians in recognised Government Institutions. (6). It is pertinent to mention here that those students who had passed vocational course in MLT 10+2 examination and those students who were declared unsuccessful in the said examination were allo- wed to undergo practical training of Laboratory Technicians in recognised Government Institutions. (6). It is also averred in paragraph 5 of the additional reply to the writ petition that the aforesaid three institutions run and maintained by three private Trusts named-above could not have continued the vocational courses after 1991 in absen- ce of recognition by the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer yet these institutions continued the vocational courses for the years 1991-92 and 1992-93. This effort on the part of these institutions is alleged to be illegal, arbitrary and uncalled for. Those students admitted for the academic Session 1991-92 and 1992-93 were also allowed to undergo practical training of Laboratory Technicians by order of this Court dated 4.8.94 although they were not entitled to do so. (7). It is borne out from Annex.1 to the writ petition No. 1462 of 1997 that Assistant Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Government of Rajasthan, jaipur at his own level without obtaining approval from the Deputy Secretary/Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Jaipur wrote a letter to the Additional Director, Medical and Health Services to admit those students for practical training of Laboratory Technicians in different Centres of Medical Department recognised by the Government for imparting training. The Assistant Secretary also forwarded the list of candidates without obtaining approval from the Deputy Secretary/Secre- tary, Medical and Health Department for their admission for practical training of Laboratory Technicians in Government Hospitals where such facilities were available. It is also averred in the additional reply that Assistant Secretary was not competent as per procedure of the department to forward the said letter or list of the candidates directly to the Director/Additional Director Medical and Health Ser- vices without obtaining approval of the Deputy Secretary/Secretary, Medical and Health Department. It is also averred in the additional reply that the order passed by the Assistant Secretary, Medical and Health which was sent to the Director, Medical and Health Services was probed into by the Government and in the preliminary enquiry, it was found prima facie that Shri S.S. Baldeva Asstt. It is also averred in the additional reply that the order passed by the Assistant Secretary, Medical and Health which was sent to the Director, Medical and Health Services was probed into by the Government and in the preliminary enquiry, it was found prima facie that Shri S.S. Baldeva Asstt. Secretary Medical and Health Department was guilty of committing irregularities for sending list Annex.1 to the writ petition for practical training of Laboratory Technicians in different centres of Medical Departments recognised by the Government. A true copy of the chargesheet given to Shri S.S. Baldeva is placed on record and is marked as Annx. R/1 to the additional reply filed on behalf of the respondents. (8). From the averments made in the writ petition and the averments made in the reply as well as in additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the petitioners in these petitions can be classified into three categories as under:- (a). Those petitioners who have passed the examination of 10+2 vocational course. (b). Those petitioners who appeared in the examination of 10+2 vocational course but failed in the said examination. (c). Those petitioners who did not appear in the examination of 10+2 vocational course but allowed to complete their nine months practical training of Laboratory Technicians in a recognised Government Hospital. The position of the petitioners in these petitions have been tabulated in Schedule `I to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1121/96. (9). The basic question which this Court is called upon to decide, would be whether the petitioners who obtained nine months `practical training of MLT in Government recognised Hospitals on the basis of decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5135/93 decided on 4.8.94 are entitled to be appointed on the post of Laboratory Technicians in Government Hospitals. (10). It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. (10). It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M. Mridul that the petitioners admission for nine months practical training of MLT in Government recognised Hospitals in pursuant to Annex.1 to the writ petition, which is ba- sed on the judgment of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5135 of 1993, decided on 4.8.94 (supra) was granted after disclosure of the relevant facts, therefore, the respondents chosen to grant admission to the petitioners after disclosure of the facts then the respondents cannot turn back later on and say that the fruits of the labour arising out of the admission granted after full disclosure of facts will not be available to the petitioners. In support of his aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the principle of equitable estoppel which is also popularly known as Doctrine of promissory estoppel and theory of legitimate expectation as according to the learned counsel for the petitioners all the petitioners in these petitions were made to execute bonds and were also bound down to the effect that they could not leave training course in between. In is further urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all the petitioners were bound down to serve the Government of Rajasthan if the Government of Rajasthan offers them an appointment. On admission being so granted, they prosecute their studies as per Syllabus prescribed in Annx.3 to the writ petition, took the examination pursuant to a direction Annex.4 and certificates of completion of course were given to them. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all these petitioners before this Court spent nine valuable months of their life in undergoing training and spent lot of money in studying at the various places of practical training of MLT in Government recognised Hospitals which were not their home places. (11). It is vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have thus not only altered their position but altered their position to their prejudice. The practical training of MLT for nine months in Government Hospitals, cannot be permitted to equip them to take examination from Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer as they were not students of XI or XII Classes and their nine months training cannot be permitted to go a total waste. The practical training of MLT for nine months in Government Hospitals, cannot be permitted to equip them to take examination from Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer as they were not students of XI or XII Classes and their nine months training cannot be permitted to go a total waste. In support of his aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon decisions rendered by the Apex Court reported in 1995 (6) JT (SC) 485 (3), AIR 1987 SC 2414 (4), 1983 (1) SCC 119 (5) and a decision reported in AIR 1998 Raj. 33 (6) rendered by me. (12). The aforesaid arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Mridul have been adopted by other learned counsel appearing on behalf of rest of the petitioners. (13). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents refuted the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that all these petitioners got their admission for practical training of MLT in Government recognised Hospitals for nine months in pursuant to Annx.1 passed by Assistant Secretary which is based on the decision rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5135/93 decided on 4.8.1994 (supra). It is also urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that at one hand, the peti- tioners are placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Single Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5135/93, decided on 4.8.94 (supra) for the purposes of their admission in Government recognised hospitals for their practical Training in MLT vocational courses, which is favourable to them but they are not prepared to accept further atipulation made in the aforesaid judgment of the lear- ned Single Judge directing the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer to conduct their examinations as per Rules, so that, the petitioners may complete their 10+2 vocational course and practical training, to qualify their examinations. It is strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners in these petitions cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate accepting the de- cisions rendered by the Single Bench of this court in the aforesaid writ petition partly which is favourable to them and denying to accept to pass 10+2 examination from Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer flowing from the same decision. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that doctrine of equitable estoppel, which is popularly known as doctrine of promissory estoppel and rule of legitimate expectation cannot be permitted to be reduced to a rule of thumb. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the doctrine of equitable estoppel as well as rule of legitimate expectation are not attracted. (14). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid rival conten- tions raised at the bar. (15). In my considered opinion, the doctrine of promissory estoppel and theory of legitimate expectation are evolved by Court of law to keep the scale of justice even and to do effective and complete justice between the parties, mitigating the rigour of strict law. To my mind the principle of equitable estoppel and rule of legitimate expectation being an equitable theories evolved by Courts of law, therefore, these two principles can be moulded by the Courts making it suitable to the facts and circumstances of each case. The aforesaid two principles cannot be reduced to a rule of thumb. In those cases, where the Courts are objectively satisfied that equity, justice and good conscience demand that the promisor can be allowed to resile from his promise or representation in such cases ordinarily the Courts can decline to extend the applicability of doctrine of promissory estoppel and rule of legitimate expectation looking into public interest whereas on the other hand, if it is objectively satisfied that it cannot be made possible to relegate the pro- mise to his original position ante then the promise so made should be declared final and irrevocable ignoring the plea of executive necessity of State and by mitigating the rigour of strict law. (16). (16). In the present facts and circumstances of the case, the doctrine of promissory estoppel and theory of legitimate expectation are not attracted in the light of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5135/93, decided on 4.8.94 (supra) according to which, the learned Single Judge in operative portion of his judgment in order to keep the scale of justice even and to do effective and complete justice between the parties mitigating the rigour of strict law, allowed the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to give the petitioners the same treatment in respect of training as well as in the conduct of the examination which was given to 65 students earlier and then to the remaining 16 students latter. The arrangements for nine months practical training of MLT 10+2 vocational course to the petitioners in Government recognised Hospitals where such facilities were available were ordered to be afforded by the learned Single Judge in aforesaid writ petition subject to their passing of 10+2 examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer as per Rules, so that, the petitioners and those mentioned in Schedule `A complete their 10+2 course coupled with the practical training envisaged under the Syllabus of MLT 10+2 vocational course. (17). In my humble opinion, looking into the facts and circumstances of the present case in totality, as the right of admission for nine months practical training in recognised Government hospitals to all these petitioners indisputably flow from Annx.1 based on the decision rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5135/93 decided on 4.8.94 (supra) therefore now it cannot be permitted to be deviated on the principles of promissory estoppel and rule of legitimate expectation. In these writ petitions this Court cannot afford to permit the petitioners to deviate from the decision rendered by the Court in the aforesaid writ petition. In these writ petitions this Court cannot afford to permit the petitioners to deviate from the decision rendered by the Court in the aforesaid writ petition. It is revealed from the aforesaid decision that a direction was given to the respondents to make arrangements for practical training of MLT 10+2 vocational course in Government recog- nised Hospitals that has been complied with by the respondents imparting them nine months practical training of MLT which is integral part of the Syllabus of 10+2 vocational course of MLT now it is necessary in pursuant of the aforesaid decision, for the petitioners to clear the examination of 10+2 vocational course of MLT from Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer in compliance of the aforesaid decision. The petitioners by filing these writ petitions cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold together. They cannot be allowed to claim the benefit flowing from the order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5135/93 (supra) and in refusing to follow obligation upon them in passing 10+2 examination after completion of nine months practical training which is integral part of the Syllabus of 10+2 vocational course of MLT from the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer in compliance of the aforesaid decision. (18). It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5135/93 (supra) is bringing only on those petitioners who were parties in the writ petition but it is not binding on the other petitioners before this Court who were not studying at the relevant time in Class XI and Class XII (10+2 vocational course of MLT) for which final examination was to be conducted by the Board of Secondary Education. It is true that the petitioners who were parties in the aforesaid writ petition No. 5135/93 the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge is binding on them and they cannot be allowed to deviate from the direction given in the aforesaid writ petition to them to pass the Secondary Examination of 10+2 vocational course conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. In fact, the decision rendered by the Single Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition will operate as res judicata against them and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable to me. In fact, the decision rendered by the Single Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition will operate as res judicata against them and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable to me. As regards those petitioners who are claiming that they were not studying at the relevant time in Class XI and Class XII of 10+2 vocational course examination required to be conducted by the Board of Secondary Education were not entitled to get admission for nine months practical training on the basis of the aforesaid judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5135/93 (supra). The equitable principle of promissory estoppel and rule of legitimate expectation cannot be extended to those petitioners ho were not studying at the relevant time in Class XI and Class XII of vocational course of MLT but they had succeeded to manoeuvre their nine months practical training in Gov- ernment recognised hospitals in the garb of decision rendered in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 5135/93 (supra) without proper scrutiny, checking and verification of facts from the said decision. (19). It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that entry No.4 of Schedule `I appended with Rajasthan Medical and Health Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1965 (for short `the Rules of 1965) clearly provides requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Laboratory Technician by 100% direct recruitment. As per Rule of the aforesaid entry, the qualifications laid down are specified in column No. 4 Secondary or its equivalent examination with 9 months training certificate from institution recognised by the Government. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as a matter of fact for giving admission in nine months practical training course all that required is that the candidate must have passed Secondary or equivalent examination which is apparent from Annx.9 dated 24.6.96 whereby applications were invited from the candidates for Laboratory Technicians by the Director, Medical and Health and Family Welfare Services. The same educational qualification for admission to the said course has also been placed on record and marked as Annx. 21 filed on 7.8.98. (20). The same educational qualification for admission to the said course has also been placed on record and marked as Annx. 21 filed on 7.8.98. (20). In nut-shell, the learned counsel for the petitioners intends to suggest by his aforesaid argument that MLT 10+2 vocational course prescribing in its syllabus, the practical training of MLT should be declared to be at par with the educational qualification prescribed for appointment of Laboratory Technicians under Entry No.4 of Schedule appended to the Rules of 1965 notified on 3.6.82. Suffice it to say in this regard that under the Constitution, the power of Legislature, Executive and Judiciary have been well demarcated and each of the organs of the State are expected to act with mutual respect with each other without transgressing the po- wer conferred under the Constitution. I am of the view that what qualification is required for appointments on the post of Laboratory Technicians are to be prescribed by His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan on the policy decision taken by the elected representative of the State by making statutory rules in exercise of his legislative function envisaged under Art. 309 of the Constitution of India. I am further of the view that it is only His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan in exercise of his legislative function under Art. 309 of the Constitution of India can declare MLT 10+2 vocational course equivalent to the qualification prescribed under Entry No.4 Schedule appended to the Rules of 1965, therefore, the Court declines to declare MLT 10+2 vocational course as an equivalent qualification pre- scribed under Entry No.4 of Schedule appended to the Rules of 1965 notified on 3.6.82. The same principle is held to be good for recognising the petitioners nine months practical training from Government recognised Hospitals originating from Annx.1 order passed by the Assistant Secretary based on the decision rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5135/93 decided on 4.8.94 (supra) as integral part of MLT 10+2 vocational course, which is subject to final examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer, to be equivalent to nine months training for appointment of Laboratory Technicians under the Rules of 1965. (21). Before parting with the discussion on the principle of equitable estoppel and theory of legitimate expectation it is held that both these doctrines evolved by courts of law after Second World War are in process of evolution. (21). Before parting with the discussion on the principle of equitable estoppel and theory of legitimate expectation it is held that both these doctrines evolved by courts of law after Second World War are in process of evolution. These two theories are not based on cast iron formula but both are flexible on equity, justice and good conscience with an avowed object to prevent fraud and secure justice between the parties by promoting honesty and good faith. The aforesaid two doc- trines are to be used to prevent any party from approbating and reprobating at the same time. Here in these writ petitions, I decline to extend the principles of aforesaid two doctrines of equitable estoppel and legitimate expectation to the petitioners, inasmuch as, in these cases extending the applicability of the aforesaid two doctrines would tantamount allowing the petitioners to approbate and repro- bate Annx.1 based on the decision rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5135/93 decided on 4.8.94 (supra) at the same time, which is impermissible. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners for extending the doctrines of equitable estoppel and rule of legitimate expectation are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case hence need no detail discussion. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, these writ petitions lack merit and as such all these petitions are hereby dismissed. Costs are made easy.