JUDGMENT Radha Mohan Prasad, J.- In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for Quashing of the impugned letter dated 10.5.1990 issued under the signature of the Manager, Personnel and Administration, the Bihar State Hydro Electrical Power Corporation Ltd. (respondent no.2) as contained in Annexure 16, whereby and where under the petitioner has been asked to communicate his consent for his absorption to the post of Accountant in the light of the earlier letter of the Corporation dated 21.7.1989 and on the terms and conditions mentioned therein within three days from the receipt of the letter, failing which it will be presumed that he did not consent for his absorption as such and his services shall be sent back to his parent department, i.e. Small Industries Service Institute (for short 'the SISI'). The petitioner further prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to absorb him to the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) with the respondent Corporation. By way of supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the office order dated 4.6.1990, contained in Annexure 17, by which the service of the petitioner has been returned back to his parent department with effect from 17.5.1990. 2. In short the relevant facts are that initially the petitioner joined as Lower Division Clerk on 3.6.1972 in the SISI, a department of the Government of India in the Ministry of Industries and he worked there till 7.9.1983. The respondent Corporation in the year 1983 made an advertisement for appointment to the post of Senior Accounts Clerk on deputation on foreign service terms from the candidates working with any organisation. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied and was interviewed and after being selected was appointed to the post of Senior Accounts Clerk with the respondent Corporation with effect from the forenoon of 8th September. 1983 on foreign service term. The said appointment was to be valid for a period of one year. However, with the consent of the Government of India the services of the petitioner remained with the Corporation till 7th September, 1987. The petitioner was paid the deputation allowances and contributions pertaining to leave salary, pension etc. up to 7.9.1987 i.e. till the expiry of the four years' term. 3. However, with the consent of the Government of India the services of the petitioner remained with the Corporation till 7th September, 1987. The petitioner was paid the deputation allowances and contributions pertaining to leave salary, pension etc. up to 7.9.1987 i.e. till the expiry of the four years' term. 3. According to the petitioner, he was asked by the Financial Advisor-cum-Chief Accounts Officer of the Corporation to give his consent for his absorption to the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) in public interest. The petitioner by his letter dated 7.7.1987 (Annexure 2) consented for his absorption as such subject to the condition that the services rendered by him with the Government of India be counted for the purpose of pension and gratuity and he be given pay protection. On receipt of the aforesaid letter (Annexure 2) of the petitioner, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation by his letter dated 9.7.1987 (annexure 3) wrote to the Director, SISI to accord permission for absorption of the petitioner on the higher post. In response to the said letter (Annexure 3), the Deputy Director of SISI by his letter dated 3.8.1987 (Annexure 4) requested the respondent Corporation to relieve the petitioner for joining the SISI as his deputation was going to expire on 7.9.1987. It was further stated in his letter that if the petitioner resigns from the service of the SISI. his case for absorption can be considered by the Corporation. However, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation (respondent no.1) again wrote to the Development Commissioner, Small Scale Industries, New Delhi, vide letter dated 14.8.1987 (Annexure 5) requesting that the Government of India be pleased to accord its approval to the absorption of the petitioner in the Corporation as the Corporation intended to absorb him permanently in the service of the Corporation in the larger public interest. 4. In the meanwhile, the Corporation placed the matter of absorption of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) before the Board of Directors of the Corporation which by its resolution dated 25.9.1987 (Annexure 6) approved the same, provided the Government of India gives its consent. The Government of India by its letter dated 6.10.1987 (Annexure 7) addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation stated that the Corporation has not communicated the specific date of permanent absorption of the petitioner in the Corporation. The Government of India by its letter dated 6.10.1987 (Annexure 7) addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation stated that the Corporation has not communicated the specific date of permanent absorption of the petitioner in the Corporation. The said letter, inter alia, also stated that as the deputation term has expired on 7.9.1987 it is presumed that the petitioner will be absorbed in the Corporation with effect from 8.9,1987. In response to the said letter the respondent Corporation by its letter dated 15.10.1987 (Annexure 8) confirmed that the Board of Directors of the Corporation was agreeable to the permanent absorption of the petitioner with effect from 8.9.1987. The Government of India by its communication dated 19th July. 1988 (Annexure 9), however, approved for absorption of the petitioner as Accountant in the public interest in the Corporation with effect from 8.9.1987. However, the petitioner was informed through letter dated 21.7.1989 (Annexure 10) of the respondent no.2 that his services can be absorbed with effect from 14.6.1989 in the light of the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 14.6.1989 to the post of Accountant. The petitioner was asked to communicate his consent within one week, failing which it will be presumed that he is not agreeable to serve in the said terms and his services shall be sent back to the parent department. The Government of India, vide its communication dated 23.3.1989 (Annexure 11) addressed to the Corporation intimated that the name of the petitioner has been struck off from the strength of the SISi with all intents and purposes with effect from 8.9.1987. 5. On receipt of the offer dated 21.7.1989 (Annexure 10), the petitioner protested and wrote to the respondent. Corporation by his letter dated 5.8.1989 (Annexure 12) to honour its original promise to absorb him to the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) in the Corporation with effect from 8.9.1987. In the said letter the petitioner has specifically stated that the door of his parent department has been closed for ever and he cannot go to his parent department as his name has been struck off from their roll. In the said letter the petitioner has specifically stated that the door of his parent department has been closed for ever and he cannot go to his parent department as his name has been struck off from their roll. In response to the said letter (Annexure 12), respondent no.2 wrote to the petitioner, vide letter dated 25.8.1989 (Annexure 13) that as he is not ready for his absorption to the post of Accountant with effect from 14.6.1989, the respondent Corporation has requested to the parent department of the petitioner to recall his services back and during this interregnum he will continue to be on the same terms and conditions as applicable to him on deputation to the Corporation. On receipt of the said request the Government of India sought for the original 'consent letter of the petitioner and in reply thereto the Corporation by letter dated 12.12.1989 (annexure 14) wrote to the Government of India that the original letter of consent of the petitioner has been misplaced in the office, but from the agenda note of the Board's meeting it is clear that the petitioner opted for the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts). On 7.2.1990 (Annexure 15), the Government of India wrote a letter to respondent no.1 stating therein that as the petitioner had given his consent for absorption as Assistant Manager (Accounts), he may be absorbed as such and necessary amendment may be made in the letter dated 19.7.1988 (Annexure 9) accordingly. However, on 10.5.1990 the impugned order, contained in Annexure 16, has been passed against which the petitioner filed the present writ application. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner the petitioner also prayed for quashing of the office order dated 4.6.1990, contained in Annexure 17, whereby the service of the petitioner has been returned to his parent department with retrospective effect from the forenoon of 17.5.1990. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent and a reply thereto has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents mainly the stand taken is that no such promise was made to the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) and that no such post exists in the Corporation till today. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents mainly the stand taken is that no such promise was made to the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) and that no such post exists in the Corporation till today. As such according to the respondents, there is no question of altering of the position by the petitioner and severing his relationship with the Government of India where he was a permanent employee in his parent department pursuant to any promise made by the Corporation. It is stated that the facts explained in paragraph 29 of the counter affidavit establish that in no way the respondents are bound to absorb him on the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts). It is further stated that both the petitioner's parent department and the respondent Corporation have been communicating with each other on the matter till the relieving of the petitioner from the service of the respondent Corporation. According to the respondents though no final reply was received from the parent f department of the petitioner despite reminder yet the respondent Corporation did not relieve him on consideration that the Corporation did not want to harm him in any way and allowed him to continue even after the expiry of the terms of deputation. 8. In reply affidavit it is stated that the stand of the respondent Corporation that the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) was not available in the sanctioned strength is misconceived and is not in conformity with the resolution of the Corporation. In the agenda note dated 25.9.1987 (Annexure 6) it is stated that one of the posts of Deputy Manager (Accounts) shall be downgraded to that of the Assistant Manager (Accounts). The petitioner has annexed a copy of the letter bearing no.3034 dated 6.9.1988 of the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation addressed to the Development Commissioner, Small Scale Industries. Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi as second Annexure 17, in which it is stated that the Corporation is considering for the permanent absorption' of the petitioner in the Corporation to the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) in the State Government scale of pay of Rs.1000-1820/- with effect from 8th September, 1987 and sought for formal acceptance of the petitioner's absorption on the said post. It is, thus. It is, thus. contended that the respondent Corporation promised to absorb the petitioner to the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) and on account of that the petitioner altered his position which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, his lien with the Government of India stood terminated. 9. During the course of hearing, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents annexing the copy of resolutions dated 14.6.1989 and 30.4.1990, contained in Annexures P and Q respectively and the copies of the agenda also for the said resolutions as Annexures Rand S respectively. It is stated that in none of the resolutions of the Board there is any promise for appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Manager (Accounts) which post had never been sanctioned prior to 28.10.1994. 10. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner to which Office Order No.379 dated 28.10.1994 has been annexed as Annexure 20 communicating that in the light of the decision of the Board of Directors of the Corporation two posts of Deputy Manager (Accounts) which are lying vacant are downgraded as Assistant Manager (Accounts). The petitioner has also brought on record the office Order no.357 dated 24.10.1996 (Annexure 21) issued by the Corporation allowing the petitioner to discharge his duties as Assistant Manager (Accounts) and making him also drawing and disbursing officer, pursuant to which his joining in the said capacity has also been accepted, vide Annexure 22. 11. Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the facts of the present case clearly demonstrate that there has been proposal/decision in the Corporation always to absorb the petitioner as Assistant Manager (Accounts) so much so that his consent for absorption in the said capacity was also obtained, but no formal appointment letter in that capacity could be issued on account of some delay on the part of the parent department of the petitioner. In this regard, he referred to Annexure 15. whereby the parent department finally gave its consent for absorption of the petitioner as Assistant Manager (Accounts) in the Corporation on 7.2.1990. In this regard, he referred to Annexure 15. whereby the parent department finally gave its consent for absorption of the petitioner as Assistant Manager (Accounts) in the Corporation on 7.2.1990. It was contended by him that the respondent Corporation later turned around and illegally and arbitrarily denied the absorption on false pretext that the post is not available and that there is no such decision of the Board of Directors when the fact is otherwise as is evident from Annexures 20, 21 and 22 besides several other annexures, referred to above, that the post of Assistant Manager was created by downgrading the post of Deputy Manager (Accounts) and that the petitioner was also given charge of the said post to discharge his duties. As such, according to him, following the principle of promissory estoppel and/or legitimate expectation enunciated by the Apex Court in its various discussions, the respondent Corporation is bound by their said promise as it led to putting the petitioner in disadvantageous position and the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. In support of the above contention Mr. Prasad placed reliance upon the decisions in the case of Delhi C. & G. Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India ( AIR 1987 S.C. 2414 ) and in the case of U.P.S.R.T. Corporation vs. U.P. Parivahan N.S.B. Sangh (AIR 1995 S.C.1115). 12. On the other hand, Mr. Rameshwar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that besides that no post of Assistant Manager ever existed before, the principle of promissory estoppel does not apply to the present case in the absence of any such promise ever made to the petitioner by the Corporation. According to him, in any view of the matter, in the absence of availability of any post of Assistant Manager (Accounts), the principle of promissory estoppel and/or legitimate expectation cannot be attracted in view of the law settled by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Maheshwari vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1988 S.C.966 (para 21). He also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Inder Singh, reported in 1998 Lab. He also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Inder Singh, reported in 1998 Lab. I.C. 133 (S.C.), in support of his contention that in the absence of any existing vacancy of Assistant Manager (Accounts) in the Corporation, the question of promise or absorption on the said post in tile Corporation cannot arise. 13. I am unable to appreciate the said submissions of Mr. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation. From the documents, referred to above, including the one contained in Annexure 17, it is clear that the Corporation on consideration of the performance of the petitioner as an Accountant proposed for his absorption in its cadre on the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1820/- of the State Government at the appropriate stage after getting his consent. In second Annexure 17, it is also clearly stated by the Managing Director of the Corporation that the absorption of the petitioner to a post below the rank of Assistant Manager (Accounts) would not be just and appropriate in view of the fact that while on foreign service terms he was drawing his grade pay of the parent department in the scale of Rs. 950-1500/Accordingly, it was written by the Managing Director of the Corporation to the parent department that the Corporation was considering for the permanent absorption of the petitioner in the Corporation on the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) with effect from 8th September. 1987 and sought for formal acceptance of his absorption on the said post. In this regard earlier on 25.9.1987 an agenda (Annexure 6) was also prepared for downgrading of one of the posts of Deputy Manager (Accounts) to the post of Assistant Manager and for approval to appoint the petitioner on the said post. 14. It is true that till September, 1987, no post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) was available in the Corporation but the Board, vide its Resolution No. 25/119/87 dated 25th September, 1987 (part of Annexure 6) in principle decided for absorption of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid agenda as is also evident from the subject noted in the said resolution. It was further made clear that after the receipt of the consent from the parent department the matter for appointment by absorbing the services of the petitioner in the Corporation may be placed before the Board of Directors. Thus, it is evident that the decision for absorption/appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Manager (Accounts) in the Corporation had already been taken by the Board but only because of the absence of consent of the parent department the said decision was taken in principle. It appears that the parent department, however, under misconception initially, vide Annexure 9. gave its consent for absorption of the petitioner in the Corporation as Accountant. Vide letter dated 23rd March. 1989, contained in Annexure 11, the parent department, in view of the decision of the Board of Directors to absorb the petitioner in public interest with effect from 8.9.1987, struck the name of the petitioner from their strength for all intents and purposes and, further, informed the Chairman of the Corporation that the petitioner may be treated as having been absorbed under your Corporation with effect from 8.9.1987. Thereafter the petitioner, vide' Annexure 12, requested the management of the Corporation to honour its original commitment by appointing him on the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) with effect from 8.9.1987 which is also for the call of the natural justice and fair manner, where after the Managing Director of the Corporation, vide letter dated 12th December, 1989, contained in Annexure 14, wrote about it to the parent department of the petitioner with reference of the agenda note of the Board's meeting for absorption of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) and solicited an urgent reply in the matter. In response to the said letter. the parent department issued letter dated 7.2.1990 contained in Annexure 15 by way of corrigendum according consent for absorption of the petitioner as Assistant Manager (Accounts) instead of Accountant. 15. Further, from various annexures also it appears that the petitioner also gave his option for absorption as Assistant Manager and not as Accountant in response to the call given by the Corporation and all this led to strucking off his name from the strength of his parent department for all intents and purposes. 15. Further, from various annexures also it appears that the petitioner also gave his option for absorption as Assistant Manager and not as Accountant in response to the call given by the Corporation and all this led to strucking off his name from the strength of his parent department for all intents and purposes. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner acted upon the assurance given to him pursuant to the Board's decision contained in Annexure 6 and relying upon the said representation made to him altered his position which proved detrimental to him by strucking off his name from the strength of his parent department for all intents and purposes. 16. It is not the case of the respondent Corporation that the promises made by the Board of Directors in its aforementioned resolution, contained in Annexure 6, and reiterated even later was contrary to law or without any authority or power vested in them. It can neither be said that invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel and/or legitimate expectation in the facts and circumstances of the present case would be inequitable and unjust in its enforcement rather in my opinion the equity lies in favour of the petitioner who. admittedly, rendered long valuable service In the Corporation with the hope that the decision of the Board of Directors, contained in Annexure 6. would be complied with soon after the receipt of the consent from his parent department which was also finally accorded on 7.2.1990. vide Annexure 15. Moreover, from Annexure 20, I find that the Board of Directors vide its resolution dated 18.3.1994 created the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) by downgrading the post of Deputy Manager (Accounts) and also appointed the petitioner on the said post vide Annexure 21 in which capacity the petitioner joined and started functioning, yet for the reasons best known, the respondent Corporation is bent upon not to absorb the petitioner by giving regular appointment as Assistant Manager (Accounts) in the Corporation. 17. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation have no application to the facts of the present case at all. 17. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation have no application to the facts of the present case at all. In both the decisions, referred to by him, the Apex Court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked for enforcement of 'promise' made contrary to law but, in the fact and circumstances aforementioned of the present case, the said principles has got no application at all inasmuch as neither the absorption of the petitioner in the service of the Corporation is impermissible nor it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not eligible/competent to hold the post of Assistant Manager. On the contrary, the Corporation on consideration of the performance of the petitioner in its service decided in principle to absorb him as Assistant Manager (Accounts) awaiting formal consent from his parent department. It is not the case of the respondents that the service rendered by the petitioner was unsatisfactory and/or was contrary to the interest of the Corporation. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. 18. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed, the impugned orders, contained in Annexures 16 and first 17, are quashed and a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to the respondent Corporation commanding them to absorb the petitioner to the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) forthwith. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.