Per Nargotra, J. These letters patent appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26.12.2001 whereby a batch of writ petitions, including OWP Nos. 1011/2000 and 1024/2000 have been disposed of. Private respondents in these two appeals were the writ petitioners in the afore-mentioned writ petitions. The dispute pertains to the admission of the writ petitioners in various Forest service colleges set up by the Directorate of Forest Education under Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India to ensure standard and quality of forestry education and to cater to the training needs of the Forest Departments of the States/Union Territories in the country. The appellant No. 2, Director Forest Education Dehradun, is operating three State Forest Service colleges and one Ranger college under the Central Government and five Rangers colleges under the State Government. Appellant No. 2 by his letter dated 26.9.2000 intimated that 47 seats have been allotted to the J&K State for two years Certificate Course for Range Forest Officers in various Forestry training institutes/colleges under the Directorate. Out of 47 seats so allotted 10 were in PFRC Kurseong, 8 in SFC Coimbatore, 19 in Burnihat and 10 in Haldwani. Accordingly he requested for sponsorship of the candidates for the said courses. After having received the said communication the Chief Conservator of Forest Srinagar, Member Screening Committee constituted by the Government of J&K for DDR training at various training colleges in the country, issued notice inviting applications from the candidates as per eligibility mentioned in the said advertisement notice. The writ petitioners applied by submitting their applications for being selected. Respondent No. 6, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest issued a selected list dated 10.11.2000 whereby eight candidates were selected for undergoing DDR course at Coimbatore. Out of these eight candidates four are the writ petitioners in OWP No. 1011/2000. Similarly Principal Conservator of Forest issued another select list dated 14.11.2000 thereby nominating ten candidates to undergo two years Rangers Training course in Eastern Forest Ranger college Kurseong, West Bengal. The names of petitioners in OWP No. 1024/2000, except petitioner Nos. 2&3, figure in the said list and with respect to petitioners 2&3 nomination letters from the office of the C.C.F. Jammu are on the file of the writ petition. Thus the petitioners in OWP No. 1024/2000 were also selected/nominated for undergoing two years training course. The names of petitioners in OWP No. 1024/2000, except petitioner Nos. 2&3, figure in the said list and with respect to petitioners 2&3 nomination letters from the office of the C.C.F. Jammu are on the file of the writ petition. Thus the petitioners in OWP No. 1024/2000 were also selected/nominated for undergoing two years training course. After having been nominated the writ petitioners approached their respective colleges for seeking admission. The writ petitioners in OWP No. 1011/2000 were given admission in their college at Coimbatore; they were also provided hostel facilities and they also deposited the fees with the college. The training course was to commence w.e.f. 1.11.2000 in Coimbatore College and w.e.f. 15.11.2000 in Kurseong College. The Principal of Coimbatore college cancelled the admission of the writ petitioners of OWP 1011/2000 by his letter dated 1.12.2000 on the ground that there were grave irregularities in the selection process undertaken by the J&K Forest Department and further ordered for refund of the fees to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the cancellation of their admission the petitioners of OWP No. 1011/2000 approached this Court for invoking its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the constitution read with Sec. 103 of the constitution of J&K for seeking quashment of the cancellation order. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 21.12.2000 admitted the writ petition to hearing and in the meanwhile it was directed that the petitioners be allowed to continue with the course of study. As regards the petitioners in OWP No. 1024/2000, they were not allowed to join and their admission too was cancelled by the Principal of Eastern Rangers College Kurseong by orders dated 20.11.2000 and 3.11.2000 respectively. The writ petitioners in the said writ petition also approached this Court for invoking writ jurisdiction seeking quashment of the orders of cancellation of their admission. This writ petition too was admitted to hearing and petitioners in the meanwhile were allowed to continue with the course of study in the said college. The writ petitioners in both the writ petitions continued with their study for the training courses for which they had been nominated. Admittedly they have completed the courses and have been allowed to appear in the test and have been declared successful too by the Controller of Examinations of their respective colleges, during the pendency of these appeals. The writ petitioners in both the writ petitions continued with their study for the training courses for which they had been nominated. Admittedly they have completed the courses and have been allowed to appear in the test and have been declared successful too by the Controller of Examinations of their respective colleges, during the pendency of these appeals. However the certificates for the said course have not been issued in their favour. The learned Single Judge by his judgment under appeal disposed of the writ petitions in the following terms:- "Therefore these writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that those candidates who have already been selected and have joined be permitted to complete the course of study. However, in future the State Government would take notice of the stand taken by the Union of India and see to it that the selection process is completed in accordance with the Entrance Rules in existence." We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record thoroughly. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the selection/nominations for undergoing the training courses to which the petitioners were selected/nominated is governed by Entrance and Training Rules for two years Forest Rangers course. He submits that the trainees to the said course under the provision contained in rule 8.0 could be admitted in respect of four categories and the writ petitioners belong to category 8.1 under rule 11.1 power to make selection of candidates for the training rested with the sponsoring authority concerned and under rule 11.2in order that a high standard of training is ensured, the selection procedure adopted by the sponsoring authority was required to conform to the minimum standards laid down in rule 12 to 18. He argued that direct recruits of category mentioned under rule 8.1 were required to be selected on the basis of competitive examination and interview conducted by the State Government but in the present case, according to the learned counsel, the writ petitioners were neither direct recruits nor in-service candidates, therefore, were not in the first place eligible for being deputed to the training and secondly if they could be considered as direct recruits their selection was to base upon written test and interview to be conducted by the State Government. He submits that in the present case the Government of the State has not conducted any written test but had selected the writ petitioners on the basis of interview alone. He further submitted that the writ petitioners being ineligible, having been selected in violation of the procedure prescribed under of Entrance Rules, were not entitled to admission in the said colleges. They have completed the course only on the strength of the court orders and therefore they cannot be allowed any advantage of the completion of study in the colleges. He further argued that the Principals of the respective colleges were therefore justified in canceling their admissions. In this view of the position, according to learned counsel, the writ petitioners are not entitled to issuance of certificates of the course. On the other hand learned counsel for the writ petitioners have in one voice argued that Entrance Rules if at all applied to the case of the petitioners those were to be followed by the State Government. If the State Government has not followed the rules no fault can be attributed in this regard to the writ petitioners. They applied pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Screening committee; they were selected for sponsorship by the State Government; they completed the training courses, appeared for final test and have been declared successful and therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice, equity and fair play to declare their admission illegal, in view of the fact that they have completed the training courses. If at all there is any infraction of rules it is not so fundamental in nature which can result in cancellation of their admission, especially so when there is a provision for relaxation of the eligibility condition in the Entrance Rules itself. In support of their contention learned counsel for the writ petitioners have relied upon AIR 1986 SC 1448. Rule 8 of the Entrance Rules reads as follows:- "8.0 Categories of trainees. There will be four categories of trainees: 8.1. Candidates sponsored by States/Union Territories Governments/Autonomous district councils. 8.2. Candidates sponsored by Public sector undertakings. 8.3. Private candidates sponsored by industrial firms and other institutions; 8.4. Candidates sponsored by Foreign countries." The writ petitioners having been nominated/sponsored by the State Government fall in the category of Rule 8.1. There will be four categories of trainees: 8.1. Candidates sponsored by States/Union Territories Governments/Autonomous district councils. 8.2. Candidates sponsored by Public sector undertakings. 8.3. Private candidates sponsored by industrial firms and other institutions; 8.4. Candidates sponsored by Foreign countries." The writ petitioners having been nominated/sponsored by the State Government fall in the category of Rule 8.1. The first question arising for consideration is whether private candidates could be sponsored by the State Government under rule 8.1. The word "trainee" has been defined in rule 3.6 as follows:- "Trainee" means a candidate deputed by any sponsoring authority to undergo two years course at a Forest Rangers college and admitted to the college." Neither rule 8 nor rule 3.6 restricts the sponsorship of candidates to in-service candidates, whether direct or promotee. Rule 16 deals with competitive examinations in respect of direct recruits. Rule 16.1 reads as under:- "The candidates of category mentioned in rule 8.1 will be selected on the basis of competitive examination and interview conducted by the Government of the States/Union Territories/Autonomous District Council or Public Service Commission of the State" From the bare reading of Rule 16.1 it is manifest that this rule applies to direct recruits. The word "direct recruit" has not been defined anywhere in the rules. Mr.Sharma learned counsel for the appellants however; summits that direct recruit would mean an in-service candidate recruited directly into forest service under recruitment rules. Rule 18 deals with in serviced candidates who according to Mr.Sharma can only be promotees under recruitment rules. This rule reads as follows:- "Selection of departmental candidates included in category mentioned in Rule 8.1 & 8.2: A Forester/Dy.Ranger may be deputed for training by the State/Union Territories Governments/Autonomous District Councils/ Public Undertaking; provided that he has stood first in a State Foresters Training Schools and passed the High school in science or an equivalent examination." Learned counsel for the appellants Mr.Sharma contends that since there is no provision under the rules dealing with selection of private candidates, therefore, it should be accepted that private candidates cannot be nominated/sponsored for the said course. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with Mr.Sharma. In rule 8.1 it cannot be read between the lines that only in-service candidates shall be sponsored. Private candidates can also be sponsored by industrial firms and other institutions under rule 8.3. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with Mr.Sharma. In rule 8.1 it cannot be read between the lines that only in-service candidates shall be sponsored. Private candidates can also be sponsored by industrial firms and other institutions under rule 8.3. Even candidates can be sponsored by foreign countries and Public sector undertakings in terms of rule 8.2 & 4. The eligibility set down for candidates to be sponsored for training has been prescribed in Rule 12 to 15. The said rules do not prescribed anywhere that candidates to be sponsored by the State must be in-service candidates only. The procedure laid down in Rule 16 for making selection is to be applied only for making selections from amongst the direct recruits. It has no application to the candidates from other categories. Entrance Rules do not specifically exclude the sponsorship of private candidates. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the sponsorship of writ petitioners by the State Government for the said study course. Since in the rules no procedure has been laid down for making selection of the private candidates by the State Government in terms of rule 8.1, therefore, the State Government was entitled to evolve its own procedure for making selection of candidates for sponsorship for the said training courses. Such procedure to be evolved by the Government was required to stand the test of reasonableness and fairness. In the present case State Government issued the notice inviting applications from all the persons possessing requisite qualifications and eligibility prescribed by the rules. Applications were processed and screened by the Screening Committee constituted by the Government. Candidates were subjected to interview and after conducting interviews the writ petitioners were selected for sponsorship. The procedure adopted by the State Government in our considered opinion cannot be faulted with as the same appears to be fair and reasonable. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the selections made or to say that the selection of the writ petitioners was in any manner in contravention of the Entrance Rules. The appellants were therefore not justified in canceling the admissions of the writ petitioners. Even otherwise since the petitioners have completed the courses successfully, though in terms of the court orders, they were allowed to appear in the final test without the intervention of the court by the appellants. The appellants were therefore not justified in canceling the admissions of the writ petitioners. Even otherwise since the petitioners have completed the courses successfully, though in terms of the court orders, they were allowed to appear in the final test without the intervention of the court by the appellants. After having permitted them to appear in the final test, the appellants are estopped from saying that the admission of the writ petitioners to the said courses was in violation of the Entrance Rules and, therefore, deserve to be cancelled. From whatever angle we may examine the issue, we come to the conclusion that the admission of the writ petitioners does not deserve to be cancelled, as they have already completed the courses. In a case titled Rajendra Parsad v. Karnatka University, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1448, their lordships of the Supreme court held as follows:- "The question still remains whether we should allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective Engineering colleges in which they were admitted. It was strenuously pressed upon us on behalf of the appellants that under the orders initially of the learned Judge and thereafter of this Court they have been pursuing their course of study in the respective Engineering colleges and their admissions should not now be disturbed because if they are now thrown out after a period of almost four years since their admission their whole future will be blighted. Now it is true that the appellants were not eligible for admission to the Engineering Degree course and they had no legitimate claim to such admission. But it must be noted that the blame for their wrongful admission must lie more upon the Engineering colleges which granted admission than upon the appellants. It is quite possible that the appellants did not know that neither the Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan nor the first year B.Sc. examination of Rajasthan and Udaipur Universities was recognized as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board Banglore. The appellants being young students from Rajasthan might have presumed that since they had passed the first year B.Sc. examination of the Rajasthan or Udaipur University or in any even the Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan they were eligible for admission. The appellants being young students from Rajasthan might have presumed that since they had passed the first year B.Sc. examination of the Rajasthan or Udaipur University or in any even the Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan they were eligible for admission. The fault lies with the Engineering colleges which admitted the appellants because the Principals of these Engineering colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases they granted admission to the appellants. We do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the management of these Engineering colleges. We would therefore notwithstanding the view taken by us in this judgment allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective Engineering colleges in which they were granted admission." The case of the writ petitioners stands on a better footing than the writ petitioners of the Rajendra Parasds case (supra). Even if it is presumed that there has been some infraction of Entrance Rules, we are of the view that in the circumstances of the case it shall not be fair and equitable to cancel the admission of the writ petitioners. The appeals filed by the appellants are therefore found to be without any merit and as such are dismissed. We direct that the appellants shall issue necessary certificates in respect of the courses studied by the writ petitioners forth with.