JUDGMENT S.L. Jain, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30-6-2003, passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3350/2003, the appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. A brief resume of the facts required to be stated is as follows :- The appellant filed a writ petition before this Court alleging that she after securing the degree of MBBS, appeared in PG Entrance Examination conducted by the Professional Examination Board, M. P. (hereinafter referred to as the "M.P. Board"). She also appeared in All India Pre PG Examination conducted by the Assistant Controller of Examination, All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi in January, 1999. 3. The appellant received a call for counseling from Director, Central Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, in March, 1999. Seeing no chance of receiving any call from M. P. Board in the near future, she responded to the aforesaid call from New Delhi and was assigned a seat as a student for Diploma in Otolaryngology (hereinafter referred to as "DLO"), in B. J. Medical College, Pune, in the Ear, Nose and Throat (hereinafter referred to as "ENT") Department. The appellant tried to explore the possibility of early declaration of the result by the M. P. Board but seeing no prospect of admission on selection by the M. P. Board in near future, the appellant joined at B. J. Medical College, Pune as a student for DLO (ENT). According to the appellant, this was so done to avoid any delay in her further education. 4. The appellant pleaded that her apprehension of delayed action on the part of M. P. Board came true when she received a call for counseling by the M.P. Board somewhere in October, 1999, almost 1 1/2 years after the examination. By this time, the appellant had already spent 7 months as a DLO student at B. J. Medical College, Pune and also passed her Diploma in National Board (hereinafter referred to as "DNB") examination. As the counseling of M. P. Board would have resulted in loss of one year of her studies, the appellant continued her studies at B. J. Medical College, Pune till she successfully passed her DLO examination in January, 2001. As the counseling of M. P. Board would have resulted in loss of one year of her studies, the appellant continued her studies at B. J. Medical College, Pune till she successfully passed her DLO examination in January, 2001. After passing DNB, Part-I examination, on appellant's request, the National Board of Examination (hereinafter referred to as "National Board") directed her admission to DNB, Part-II ENT Department in Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as '"Medical College, Jabalpur"). Consequently, she was admitted in Medical College, Jabalpur as DNB Part-II student. 5. The appellant also pleaded that on completing the required course of studies for two years the appellant deposited the examination fees and submitted application in the prescribed form to appear in MS (ENT) examination to be held by Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as "University"), sometimes in July, 2003 to respondent No. 1 for forwarding the same to University. The appellant was eligible to take the examination but the Dean of Medical College, Jabalpur declined to forward the application to University on the ground that the admission of the appellant to PG course was not through the Pre PG Examination, held by M. P. Board. 6. The appellant then approached the Registrar of the University for acceptance of her application form. The Registrar found the application well in order and also found the appellant competent and qualified to appear in the examination but at the same time he found himself helpless in accepting the application form as the same was not forwarded by the Dean of Medical College, Jabalpur. 7. According to the appellant the act of Dean in not forwarding the application form is arbitrary and unreasonable, therefore, by filing writ petition she prayed for quashment of the orders of Dean, Medical College, Jabalpur and Registrar of the University, Annexures P.1 and P.2. respectively. 8. On 30-6-2003, when the writ petition was listed for admission, the counsel for respondents also appeared before the learned single Judge. After hearing the parties, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition at the motion stage, holding that the appellant was given admission in the Medical College, Jabalpur as a senior resident for the purpose of DNB training for appearing in the final examination of National Board, as per request of the Board vide Annexure P. 3. After hearing the parties, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition at the motion stage, holding that the appellant was given admission in the Medical College, Jabalpur as a senior resident for the purpose of DNB training for appearing in the final examination of National Board, as per request of the Board vide Annexure P. 3. The appellant was never admitted for the MS (ENT) course of the University. The appellant was not entitled to appear in MS (ENT) examination. Her entitlement was only for taking final examination of the National Board. It is against this order of the learned single Judge that the appellant has come up in appeal. 9. We have heard. Shri J. P. Sanghi, learned senior counsel with Shri Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the appellant at the motion stage. 10. The main thrust of the contentions of the learned senior counsel is that the appellant is fulfilling the required criteria for appearing in MS (ENT) of the University. The respondent No. 1 could not have refused to forward her application form. According to the learned counsel as per the Government of India Notification reproduced at page five of the writ petition, the medical qualification fixed by the National Board are included in the 1st Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and are considered at par with post graduate medical qualification of the University, therefore, even if the appellant was given admission for the National Board examination, she had all requisite qualifications for taking MS(ENT) examination of the University. Respondent No. 1 also endorsed a note on the application form of the appellant to the effect that she fulfils the required criteria for taking MS (ENT) examination of the University, therefore, declining to forward the form by the respondent No. 1 was arbitrary. 11. The contention is not acceptable. The basic requirement for admission in the PG course of University is getting a seat after counseling. Admittedly, the appellant appeared in the entrance examination conducted by the M. P. Board in January 1998 and she was given a call for counseling by the M.P. Board in October, 1999 but she did not appear for counseling, therefore, she missed the train. Admission through PG entrance examination, is a condition precedent for a valid admission in the PG course. Admission through PG entrance examination, is a condition precedent for a valid admission in the PG course. In the absence of fulfillment of pre requisite any qualification would not entitle the appellant to get a valid admission. Simply because a candidate possesses necessary qualification, he cannot have a right to appear in the examination without seeking admission for the course. An illustration will make the proposition clear. A student who passes higher secondary examination is entitled to appear in BA Part-I examination of the University but all the students who have passed higher secondary examination and are having necessary qualification cannot claim to take examination as regular candidate unless they seek admission in some college for that particular course and pursue their studies for the academic session. In the absence of admission for that particular purpose the candidate shall not be allowed to appear in the examination. If a candidate after passing higher secondary examination gets admission for BSc Part-I, he cannot claim that since he possesses the necessary qualification he should be allowed to appear in BA Part-I examination as he has passed higher secondary examination and pursued his studies for the whole year for BSc part-I examination. Such candidate is certainly entitled to appear in BSc Part-I examination as of right but he cannot be permitted to appear in BA Part-I examination even if BSc Part-I and BA Part-1 courses are at par or BSc Part-I is superior to BA Part-I. Therefore, even if the National Board is keeping high standard of medical examination and is treated at par with MS examination of the University, or even superior for that matter, a person getting admission for the National Board examination is certainly entitled to appear in the examination of the Board but this will not give him/her entitlement to appear in MS examination of the University. 12. A perusal of Government Notification declaring the National Board Examination at par with MS of University reveals that it is for the purposes of employments. The need of issuing such notification arose because certain employing organizations were not recognizing the degrees of National Board at par with MD/MS degree of the other Universities. Such circular cannot give right to the candidate to appear in the examination of the University in violation of the rules of the University regarding admission. 13. The need of issuing such notification arose because certain employing organizations were not recognizing the degrees of National Board at par with MD/MS degree of the other Universities. Such circular cannot give right to the candidate to appear in the examination of the University in violation of the rules of the University regarding admission. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the appellant who is a student prosecuting a professional course wanted early attainment of the qualification to enable her to enter the profession at earliest. She appeared in pre PG examination conducted by the M. P. Board. Seeing no prospect of admission in near future she joined B. J. Medical College, Pune, as a DLO student and simultaneously passed her DNB Part-I examination. She did not appear for counseling of M. P. Board because by that time she had already spent 7 months as a DLO student. In fact, she cleared the pre admission test, therefore, on humanitarian ground she is entitled for admission in MS (ENT) of the University. She is entitled to sympathetic and equitable consideration. 14. This contention is also bereft of merit. The M. P. Board conducted pre entrance examination for admission in MD/MS and diploma. The candidates who get higher ranks in the entrance examination prefer to join MD 2nd MS, therefore, in counseling preference is given in the order of merit. Usually the persons getting higher rank prefer MD and MS course, therefore, the seats for these courses are occupied by the persons getting higher ranks and the admission is given for diploma to the candidates who are placed lower in rank. It appears that keeping in view her rank in the test the appellant felt that seat in MD or MS will not be available to her and she is likely to get admission only for diploma course, therefore, she did not appear for counseling and as she was already pursuing her studies for diploma course at Pune, she preferred to forego her claim for admission in some Medical College in Madhya Pradesh for diploma and continued her studies at Pune. 15. It appears that what she could not get due to the lower rank in the entrance examination, she now wants to get by filing writ petition. 15. It appears that what she could not get due to the lower rank in the entrance examination, she now wants to get by filing writ petition. We assume all this for the reason that the appellant has deliberately not stated in her writ petition as to what was her position in the merit list. The concealment of this fact in the writ petition has persuaded us to draw above inference. A person cannot be allowed to take advantage by stratagem and trickery. 16. Even if what we presume is not a reality, the appellant is not entitled to get admission against the rules only on humanitarian considerations. No sympathetic and equitable consideration can come to the rescue of the appellant. The tendency of this kind will jeopardise the purity of education system. The relief which a party claims must be logical and tenable within the framework of law. If an admission is given on sympathetic and equitable consideration contrary to the rules, it will incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of the Courts intends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy. 17. The Supreme Court in Gurdeep Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1953 SC 2638 has observed thus : What remains to be considered is whether the selection of respondent No. 6 should be quashed. We are afraid, unduly lenient view of the Courts on the basis of human consideration in regard to such excesses on the part of the authorities, has served to create an impression that even where an advantage is secured by stratagem and trickery, it could be rationalized in Courts of law. Courts do and should take human and sympathetic view of matters. That is the very essence of justice. But considerations of judicial policy also dictate that a tendency of this kind where advantage gained by illegal means is permitted to be retained will jeopardise the cynical disrespect towards the judicial process and in the last analyse embolden errant authorities and candidates into a sense of complacency and impunity that gains achieved by such wrongs could be retained by an appeal to the sympathy of the Court. Such instances reduced the jurisdiction and discretion of Courts into private benevolence. This tendency should be stopped. 18. Such instances reduced the jurisdiction and discretion of Courts into private benevolence. This tendency should be stopped. 18. Thus, having found that the admission of the appellant was only for National Board of examination at its very inception, she was not given admission for MS (ENT), we are not in a position to accede to the plea based on equity put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant. 19. If the rules do not postulate some admission, mere fact that the candidate satisfies the eligibility criteria will not help him. The University cannot be compelled go beyond the rules. A candidate cannot be allowed to appear in the examination contrary to the rules. It is beyond the powers of the University and this Court to allow such candidate to appear in the examination. 20. In fact the appellant desires to kill two birds sitting in different directions, with one stone. Having got a seat in the Medical College for training for the purposes of National Board examination. She now desires to appear in two examinations on the basis of one admission, one the examination of the National Board and the other of the University. She must know that one who tries to ride on two horses, is sure to fall. Therefore, her attempt must fail. 21. Shri Sanghi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant also contended that the object sought to be achieved by the pre PG examination is to select meritorious candidate for PG course and not to debar such candidates who have acquired knowledge equivalent to MS course. Even if a person is meritorious, he cannot get admission contrary to the rules. 22. If really the appellant was meritorious and got higher rank in M. P. Board examination, she should have chosen to appear for the counseling and get admission in MS course. What she wants to get today she would have got in October, 1999, when she was called for counseling. She has now missed the train. May be at that time she was not having a valid ticket due to the lower rank in the list. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly contended that the appellant was given admission in the Medical College, Jabalpur, against the vacant seat of MS (ENT) and she prosecuted her studies for two years. She has now missed the train. May be at that time she was not having a valid ticket due to the lower rank in the list. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly contended that the appellant was given admission in the Medical College, Jabalpur, against the vacant seat of MS (ENT) and she prosecuted her studies for two years. If she was not entitled to admission in MS (ENT) it was bounden duty of the college to scrutinise the matter thoroughly before permitting her admission. Having given the admission in MS (ENT) against the vacant seat the respondents are now estopped from preventing the appellant for taking the examination. 24. The question therefore, is whether in a case of this nature, the principle of promissory estoppel should be invoked. The Dean of the University did not make any clear and unequivocal promise that the appellant would be allowed to appear in the MS (ENT) examination of the University. Since additional one year's training was required before the appellant was eligible for taking final examination of the Central Board on the request of the appellant the admission was given against the vacant seat only for the limited purpose of training of one year so that the appellant may be eligible for taking final examination of the National Board. 25. It is well known that the principle of promissory, estoppel is based on equitable principles. A party who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He who comes to the Court with a false claim cannot plead equity, nor the Court would be justified in exercising equity jurisdiction in his favour. There is no estoppel as no promise of admission in the University examination was made by the respondents and the appellant is trying to misuse the sympathy shown to her. A plea of promissory estoppel or equity is not available to her. Even if a candidate who is not eligible for admission, by mistake is given admission contrary to the rules, the authorities are bound to correct the mistake and refuse the continuance of the studies. De hors the rules of admission, the principle of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked. The principle of promissory estoppel cannot be applicable in strict sense to the academic courses particularly in the field of education. De hors the rules of admission, the principle of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked. The principle of promissory estoppel cannot be applicable in strict sense to the academic courses particularly in the field of education. It is not the case where the appellant is being punished for no fault of her at a belated stage by not allowing her to take MS (ENT) examination. The mere fact that she pursued her education for two years for National Board examination cannot bring about any change or alteration of her position. 26. For the reasons stated above, we are in agreement with the learned single Judge that the appellant is not entitled for taking MS (ENT) examination of the University, therefore, no interference in this Letters Patent Appeal is called for. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.