Honble GUPTA, J.–Petitioner, Ms. Abida passed her M.A. (Final) Political Science Examination, 1996 from J.N.V. University with 46 per cent marks. In response to the advertisement dt. 15.4.97 for B.Ed./Shiksha Shastri Admission Test, 1997 (for short, `PTET 1997) she submitted her application form. She was allotted Roll No. 53702. She did appear in the PTET 1997 and was declared successful. She was even given admission for training of B.Ed. vide letter dated 28.8.97 and was allotted Nagaur District. She got admission in the college (respondent No. 2). She thereupon deposited a sum of Rs. 8500/- as yearly fees on 9.9.97. However, vide letter dt. 23.9.97 (Annx. 8) the petitioner was informed by the respondent No. 2 that her admission was cancelled as she had obtained less than 45 per cent marks in her Bachelor degree examination and fees deposited by her was being returned vide cheque No. FD-294587. (2). The petitioners case is that in the notification dt. 15.4.97 it was stated that the minimum eligibility for admission to the PTET was 40 per cent marks in bachelor/masters degree and thereafter the eligibility was changed vide notifica- tion dt. 23.5.97 making 45% as the minimum eligibility in graduation/post graduation course and since she had obtained more than 45% in masters degree she is eligible to get admission in the B.Ed. course. It is averred that the candidates similar to the petitioner have been allowed to take training of B.Ed. in the colleges affiliated to the respondent No. 1 but the petitioner has been denied training by respondent No. 2 and hence the action of the respondent No. 2 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further averred that the petitioner was initially allowed to appear in the PTET and on her becoming successful in the test she was given admission in the College and respondent No. 2 accepted fees from her and therefore the respondents are estopped from cancelling her admission. (3). In the return filed by respondent No. 2 it has been averred that the criteria for admission as laid down by the National Council of Teachers Education is that candidate must obtain at least 45% marks in aggregate at the Bachelors degree examination of a recognised University and as the petitioner had not obtained 45% marks in bachelors degree she did not fulfil the eligibility admission criteria. It has been further averred that the criteria has been approved by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2138/97 Anop Singh Ratnu & Ors. vs. Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer decided on 9.9.97 (1) and therefore the petitioner does not have a right to seek admission in the course. (4). The above facts reveal that the petitioner was allowed to appear in the PTET 1997 and on her becoming successful in the test, she was admitted in the college (respondent No. 2) for study of B.Ed. Course and thereafter her admission was cancelled. This Court vide order dated 1.12.97 stayed the operation of the order Annx.8 dt. 23.9.97 and thereafter on 25.3.98 it was directed that the respondent No.2 was bound to permit the petitioner to attend the classes. The petitioner moved an application on 3.4.98 stating that inspite of orders of this Court the respondents were not allowing the petitioner to appear in lessons and block teaching. The matter was listed for orders on the application dt. 3.4.98 on 13.4.98 when the learned counsel for the parties requested that the matter may be finally disposed of as the reply has been filed and all the relevant documents have been placed on record. (5). The contention of Mr. Siddiqui was that since the petitioner had obtained more than 45 per cent marks in post graduation, she was eligible to seek admission in the B.Ed. course. According to him, the petitioner girl who comes from a Muslim community where higher education is not common, more so, in the females, should not be deprived of admission on the ground of less marks obtained by her in the degree examination. (6). As against this, Mr. Ojha and Sajjan Singh contended that the matter stands finally decided by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2138/97 - Anop Singh vs. Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer (supra) and as the petitioner had not obtained 45 per cent of marks in the degree examination she is not eligible for admission to B.Ed. course. (7). The relevant para of the Notification dt. course. (7). The relevant para of the Notification dt. 15.4.97 is reproduced hereunder:- izosk gsrq U;wure ;ksX;rk ¼fefuee bfythCyhVh½ egf"kZ n;kuUn ljLorh foofo|ky; vtesj vFkok vU; fdlh foofo|ky; dh Lukrd ¼10 Iyl 2 Iyl 3 i)fr ds vUrxZr½@Lukrdksrj fMxzh tks bl foofo|ky; }kjk blds led{k ?kksf"kr gks] esa U;wure 40 izfrkr vad ¼cspyj vkWQ ekLVlZ fMxzh lkFk esa 40 izfrkr ekDlZ½ izkIr dj mRrh.kZ gq, Nk=k ch-,-@fk{kk kkL=h ds ikB~;Øeksa esa l= 1997&98 esa izosk ds fy, vk;ksftr ihVhbZVh 1997 esa lfEefyr gks ldsaxs] U;wure 40 izfrkr esa ,d vad Hkh de ugha gksuk pkfg,A (8). It is obvious that candidates securing atleast 40% marks in either degree or post graduate examination were eligible to apply for the PTET. Closing date of the application was 1st of May, 1997. (9). It is on 23.5.97, i.e. after the closing date of the application, it was notified that only those candidates who had secured minimum 45% marks either in degree or in P.G. examination, were eligible to appear in the test. It is significant to point out that in this notification, only the percentage of marks was increased from 40% to 45% on the basis of Regulations made under the National Teachers Education Council Act, 1993. It is clear from the Notification that the gradulates or post gradua- tes were eligible to appear in the test provided they had secured not less than 45% marks in degree examination or in P.G. examination. (10). The petitioner was certainly eligible to appear in the test on the basis of the Notification dt. 23.5.97 and she appeared and passed the test. Not only this, she was given admission to B.Ed. Course in the College (respondent No. 2). It is surpri- sing that the admission of the petitioner was cancelled on the basis of the notification issued by the National Council for Teachers Education, published in Rajasthan Patrika edition of 18/19.9.97 (Annx. 6) i.e. after the petitioner had appeared in the PTET 1997 and was declared successful and was even given admission in B.Ed. Course. The petitioner is justified in saying that the cancellation of admission is against the principle of promissory estoppel. (11). It cannot be denied that the petitioner acted upon the eligibility criteria stated in the Notifications dt. 6) i.e. after the petitioner had appeared in the PTET 1997 and was declared successful and was even given admission in B.Ed. Course. The petitioner is justified in saying that the cancellation of admission is against the principle of promissory estoppel. (11). It cannot be denied that the petitioner acted upon the eligibility criteria stated in the Notifications dt. 15.4.97 and 23.5.97 as she applied for the test on the basis of marks obtained by her in the P.G. examination and on declaring successful she got admission in the college for B.Ed. Course. She has obviously altered her po- position on the basis of criteria fixed in the notifications as she did not think it nece- ssary to try for other jobs. In my opinion, the respondents are estopped from cancelling the admission to the petitioner. (12). It is further to be noticed that even the University had issued instructions to the Principals of all the training colleges to grant admission to the B.Ed. Course to all such candidates who had secured minimum 45% marks either in degree or in P.G. examination in view of the decision taken in State level meeting held on 19.8.97 under the Chairmanship of Special Secretary, Education. It is obvious that all from top to bottom were of the view that if a candidate obtained minimum 45% marks in P.G. examination, was eligible for admission to B.Ed. even though he/she had obtained less than 45% marks in degree examination. (13). It is no denying the legal position that there is no estoppel against statute. The question is, if the Regulation relied on by the respondents lays down that only such candidate is eligible to apply for the test who had secured less than 45% in degree examination irrespective of the fact that he/she secured more than 45% marks in P.G. Examination. (14). We may read Clause 8.1 of the Regulation published in the Gazette of India dt. 24.2.96. (14). We may read Clause 8.1 of the Regulation published in the Gazette of India dt. 24.2.96. 8-1- nkf[kyk lEca/kh ekun.M vfuok;Z Hkkoh fk{kd dk Lrj v/;kid fk{kk laLFkk esa nkf[ky fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds Lrj ij fuHkZj djsxkA ch-,M- ;k ekLVj fMxzh ds ikB~;Øeksa esa nkf[kyk lEcU/kh ekun.M dks dkQh mUur cukuk gksxk izkjEHk esa nkf[kyk ds fy, ekU;rk izkIr foofo|ky; dh Lukrd fMxzh ijh{kk esa dqy izkIrkad ds 45 izfrkr vad dk ekun.M fu/kkZfjr djuk gksxk ckrsZ dh vkosnd izFke ;k f}rh; fMxzh Lrj ij Ldwy fk{kk ls lEcaf/kr fo"k;ksa dks j[kk gksA v-tk-@v-t-tk- ds lEcaf/kr fo"k;ksa dks j[kk gksA v-tk-@v-t-tk- dks fu;eksa ds vuqlkj gksxhA okaNuh; %& nks Ldwyh fo"k;ksa ;k ,d foLr`r ikB~;ØrkZ {ks= ds lkFk fMØh ijh{kk esa dqy izkIrkad dk 50 izfrkr vad nkf[kyk ds fy, ekun.M fu/kkZfjr djuk okaNuh; gSA (15). The gist of the clause is that the standard of education depends on the teachers, and therefore, the criterion of admission to B.Ed. Course will have to be improved, and it was desirable that a candidate securing 60% marks in degree examination gets admission to B.Ed. Course, but for the present the criteria of 45% marks is adopted. (16). In my opinion, the clause cannot be interpreted to mean, that the candidates, who are more educationally qualified than degree course, are not eli- gible to get admission to B.Ed. course even though they had secured not less than 45% marks in P.G. examination. The purpose of fixing minimum 45% marks in degree examination is only to emphasise that it is pre-requisite for admission to B.Ed. course that a candidate must be at least a second class graduate. It does not exclude the candidates who had improved their educational qualification after gra- duation and obtained not less than 45% marks in post graduation examination. (17). It has to be accepted that a candidate if undergoes P.G. Course after obtaining degree is better equipped with the subject and is abreast of latest knowledge. When there is no clear exclusion of the candidates having higher educational qualification in the clause, it will be great injustice to the candidates who in order to appear in the test improved their percentage of marks by persecuting further study for two years. (18). When there is no clear exclusion of the candidates having higher educational qualification in the clause, it will be great injustice to the candidates who in order to appear in the test improved their percentage of marks by persecuting further study for two years. (18). It is the fundamental duty of every citizen under Article 51-A of the Constitution of India to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform AND also to strive towards excellence in all spheres. By getting higher education like post graduation, it is certain that a citizen develops the spirit of inquiry and reform besides getting excellence in the field of subjects in which he/she specialies. Therefore, it will not be fair to deprive a candidate, who had for reasons not to be gone into, might not have secured minimum percentage of 45% in degree examination but has secured more than 45% marks while obtaining P.G. degree, which is possible only after two more years study. (19). In my considered opinion, the clause 8.1 does not exclude the candidates who have passed P.G. examination securing not less than 45% to seek admission in the B.Ed. Course. (20). Apart from this, the petitioner, who comes from minority community, where higher education in females is not common, was allowed admission on the basis of the criteria laid down in the notifications dated 15.4.97 and 23.4.97 after she was declared successful in PTET and she has undergone training till now, is not at all at fault. It will be too harsh to deprive her of the B.Ed. course. (21). Now, the judgment relied on by the respondents may be looked into. In that case, the learned Single Judge has nowhere expressed opinion as to whether a candidate having passed P.G. examination with 45% marks is not eligible for admission to the B.Ed. Course. In that case, the controversy raised was whether the criterion of 40% marks fixed in the admission could be changed to 45% after- wards and whether the fixation of criteria of 45% was arbitrary. The first question was answered in affirmative and the second question in negative. In my opinion, this ruling does not help the respondents in justifying their action. (22). Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order Annx. 8 is quashed.