JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. : The petitioner after completing his Higher Secondary Education in Vocational Stream under West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education took admission in Siddhes¬war College of Pharmaceutical Science situated at Amarda Road in the district of Balasore to pursue his studies in Diploma in Pharmacy. He continued his study in that College appeared in the examination of Pharmacy Part-I, Part-II conducted by opp.party No.1, Orissa State Board of Pharmacy, Bhubaneswar (in short, “OSBP”) in June, 2002 and November, 2004 respectively and passed those examinations with 1st Class. He then received practical training according to Regulation 20 of the Education Regulations, 1991 for the Diploma Course in Pharmacy, (in short “the Regula¬tions, 1991”) and obtained contract form from head of the train¬ing institution. After successful completion of the training in Part-III he produced all his certificates to the examination authorities with a request to grant certificate of Diploma in Pharmacy as per Regulation 22. But opp.party No.1 instead of issuing the certificate of Pharmacy cancelled the D-Pharma Part-II result of the petitioner vide Notification No.371/OSBP/85/2004, dated 5.6.2004 (Annexure-13) and directed him to surrender his mark-sheet of that examination on the plea that the petitioner does not possess the minimum qualification for admission into D-Pharma course as prescribed in Regulation 5 of the Regulations, 1991. Aggrieved by such action of opp.party No.1, petitioner has filed the present writ application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the notification under Annexure-13 and direct the opp.party No.1 to issue the certificate of D-Pharma course in his favour and to allow him to register his name in the Register of the State Council, opposite party No.1 as a Pharmacist with due intimation to the Central Council, opp.party No.3 as per the provisions of Act and Rules. 2. Opposite party No.2 and 3 by separate counters refuted the plea of the petitioners claiming, inter alia that the peti¬tioner does not possess the minimum required qualification for admission into D-Pharma Course but in collusion with opposite party No.4 he got himself admitted in such course and pursued his studies. They claim that on discovery of the lack of eligibility of the petitioner, opp.party No.1 had no other alternative than to cancel the result of the petitioner. Opposite party No.4 did not file any counter. 3. Mr. They claim that on discovery of the lack of eligibility of the petitioner, opp.party No.1 had no other alternative than to cancel the result of the petitioner. Opposite party No.4 did not file any counter. 3. Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel appearing for the peti¬tioner submitted that Higher Secondary Education in vocational stream is equivalent to +2 education all over the country and when the petitioner had passed such Higher Secondary Education in vocational stream with subjects including Physics, Chemistry, Bioscience, he had the requisite minimum qualification for admis¬sion into the Diploma in Pharmacy course prescribed under Regula¬tion 5 of the Regulations, 1991. Mr Satpathy also argued that after giving the petitioner admission into the Diploma in Pharma¬cy Course, allowing him to appear in Part-I and Part-II Examina¬tions after verifying his certificates and testimonials and to complete the training in Part-III of the Course, opp.party No.1 cannot now refuse to issue the Diploma Certificate to the peti¬tioner or to cancel the results of Part-I and Part-II Examina¬tions as the same would be against equity and principles of promissory estoppel. In support of his contentions he relied on several decisions of this Court and the apex Court. 4. Mr. M. S. Panda, learned counsel appearing for opp.party No.1 on the other hand, contended that Higher Secondary Course in Vocational Stream is never equivalent to +2 Science academic stream; and as such, the petitioner does not possess the required minimum qualification for admission into the Diploma Course in Pharmacy prescribed under Regulation 5 of the Regula¬tions, 1991. 5. Mr. J. K. Mishra, learned Senior Standing Counsel, (Central Govt.) and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for opp.Party Nos.2 and 3 respectively supported the submission of Mr. Panda and further added that opp.parties 1 to 3 were never involved in the process of selection and admission of the peti¬tioner and that opp.party No.4 admitted him at their own risk and so the petitioner cannot be claim promissory estoppel against opp.parties 1 to 3. Learned counsel for opp.parties 1 to 3 fur¬ther submitted that the petitioner was allowed to appear in Part-I and Part-II examinations in good faith, but on being found that he did not possess the minimum required qualification for admis¬sion into the Diploma Course, his result was cancelled and n such situation the petitioner cannot demand for declaration of his result and issuance of his Diploma certificate on the plea of promissory estoppel. In support of such contentions, learned counsel relied on the case of Miss.Reeta Lenka v. Berhampur Uni¬versity and another, (1992 (II) OLR-341). 6. From the above noted submissions of the respective parties, the following controversies emerge for consideration : (i) Whether Higher Secondary Education in vocational stream with Physics, Chemistry and Bio-logy or Mathematics subjects is equivalent to +2 Science academic stream ? (ii) Whether giving admission to the petitioner and allowing him to continue the course and appear in Part-I and Part-II examinations, the opp.parties are not bound by the principle of promissory estoppel ? 7. From the averments made in the writ petition as well as the true copy of the certificates, Annexure- 3 to 5, it is evi¬dent that the petitioner passed his Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the West-Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Educa¬tion in 2000 from Birsingha Bhagabati Vidyalaya wit the subjects English, Bio-Science, Chemistry, Physics, Agriculture (Crop). According to the petitioner, such Higher Secondary Course is equivalent to +2 Science course prescribed under Regulation 5 of the Regulations, 1991 and therefore, he had the required minimum qualification for admission into the Diploma in Pharmacy course. Opp.Parties 1 to 3, on the other hand, have countered this claim stating that vocational stream of any Higher Secondary course or +2 course cannot be equivalent to +2 Science academic course, because the streams are entirely different. A similar controversy came up before the apex Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and another, AIR 1986 SC 1448 . In that case the condition for eligibility for admission to B.E. degree course of Karnataka University was in question. The mini¬mum required qualification for admission into the B.E. degree course of Karnataka University was passing of 2 year Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore or an examination held by any other Board or University recognized as equivalent to it. The petitioner had passed Higher Secondary Education Examination of the Secondary Education Board of Rajasthan and basing on such qualification he took admission in the B.E. degree course of Karnataka University. Since the examinations held by the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan had not been recognized as equivalent to the Pre-University Examina¬tion of Pre-University Board, Bangalore, it was held that the petitioner was ineligible for admission to the B.E. degree course of Karnataka University. Since the examinations held by the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan had not been recognized as equivalent to the Pre-University Examina¬tion of Pre-University Board, Bangalore, it was held that the petitioner was ineligible for admission to the B.E. degree course of Karnataka University. The apex Court clearly observed in that case that it is for the University to decide the question of equivalence of an examination held by any other Board or Univer¬sity with the examination which primarily constitutes the basis of eligibility and that it would not be proper for the Supreme Court or the High Court to sit in judgment on the decision of the University because it is not a matter on which the Court possess¬es any expertise. The same principle was reiterated in the case of Kusum Lata v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2002 SC 2790 . Though the fact of that case was somewhat different, yet the ratio is the same. In that case also the apex Court observed that unless the examination conducted by a Board of School Education is recognized by the Board/University where the applicant wants admission, passing of the said examination will not make him eligible for admission. 8. Regulation 5 of the Regulations, 1991 reads as follows : “5. Minimum qualification for admission to Diploma in Phar¬macy Part-I course- A pass in any of the following examinations with Physics, Chemistry and Biology or Mathematics. (1) Intermediate examinations in Science; (2) The first year of the three year degree course in Science; (3) 10+2 examination (academic stream) in Science; (4) Pre-degree examination; (5) Any other qualification approved by the Pharmacy Council of India as equivalent to any of the above examination. Provided that there shall be reservation of seats for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes candidates in accordance with the instructions issued by the Central Govt./State Govt./Union Territory Admns as the case may be from time to time.” 9. As per the said Regulation-5, the Pharmacy Council of India has to declare any other qualification as equivalent to the examinations noted in sub-Regulations (1) to (4) of Regulation 5. As per the said Regulation-5, the Pharmacy Council of India has to declare any other qualification as equivalent to the examinations noted in sub-Regulations (1) to (4) of Regulation 5. There is no indication in the Regulations, 1991 that Pharmacy Council of India has ever approved or recognized the Higher Secondary Vocational examination conducted by the West-Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education as equivalent to the exami¬nations noted in Sub-Regulations (1) to (4) of Regulation 5; rather in the counter the Pharmacy Council of India as Opp.party No.3 has claimed that vocational higher secondary course of West-Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education is not equivalent to the examinations mentioned in Regulation 5. When the Council has made positive assertion that the Higher Secondary Vocational stream examination passed by the petitioner is not equivalent to the examinations indicated in Regulation 5 and when the petition¬er has not produced any material to show that the Vocational Stream of Higher Secondary Education passed by him is equivalent to +2 Science examination, there is no scope for this Court to declare such vocational course as equivalent to the course men¬tioned in Regulation 5 of the Education Regulations, 1991. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner was admitted into Siddheswar College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Amarda Road, Balasore where he pursued his study in Diploma in Pharmacy course and appeared in Part-I and Part-II examinations on the basis of admit cards issued by the Member-Secretary, Orissa State Board of Pharmacy, Bhubaneswar (opp.party No.1) and was also declared to have passed those examinations with 1st class. Copies of the admit cards, mark-sheets of those examinations are Annexures 7 to 10 respec¬tively. The certificates issued by the Principal of Siddheswar College of Pharmaceutical Science, Amarda Road, Balasore (Annex¬ures- 11 & 12) further indicate that after passing the Part-II Examination the petitioner has undertaken practical training as required in Part-III of the course. Now the question is whether such developments and the conduct of opp.parties 1 to 4 attract the principle of promissory estoppel and whether basing on such principle the petitioner is entitled to get his certificate in Diploma in Pharmacy from opp.party No.1. 11. In the above context it would be helpful to take note of some judicial pronouncements of the apex Court and this Court. 11. In the above context it would be helpful to take note of some judicial pronouncements of the apex Court and this Court. In the case of Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, AIR 1976 SC 376 the following observation was made by the apex Court in paragraphs 6 & 7 of the judgment. “Once the candidate is allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the Statute which empowers the Universi¬ty to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear. (quoted from placitum of para-6) Before issuing an admit cared to a student to appear at Part-I Law Examination in April, 1972, it was the duty of the University authorities to scrutinize the admission form filled by the student in order to find out whether it was in order. Equally it was the duty of the Head of the Department of Law before submitting the form to the University to see that the form com¬plied with all the requirements. If neither the Head of the Department nor the University authorities took care to scrutinize the admission form, then in not disclosing the shortage of per¬centage in attendance the question of the candidate committing a fraud did not arise. Similarly when the candidate was allowed to appear at the Part-II Law Examination in May 1972, the University authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel his candidature for that examination. If the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the candidate to appear in the examination, they by force of the Uni¬versity Statute the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the candidate.” (quoted from placitum of para-7) 12. In the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur (supra) the petitioner had passed the Higher Secondary Examination from Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan which was not an examination approved by the Karnataka University. The apex Court, therefore, held the petitioner did not possess the eligibility for admission to B.E. Degree Course of Karnataka University. In the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur (supra) the petitioner had passed the Higher Secondary Examination from Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan which was not an examination approved by the Karnataka University. The apex Court, therefore, held the petitioner did not possess the eligibility for admission to B.E. Degree Course of Karnataka University. However, taking a sympathetic view that the petitioner and some other students like him had pursued the course for about four years by interim order of the learned Single Judge/Division Bench of the High Court and of the Supreme Court, the apex Court allowed the petitioners to complete their studies. It was emphazised that the University is best fitted to decide whether any examination held by a Universi¬ty outside the State is equivalent to an examination held within the State having regard to the courses, the syllabus, the quality of teaching or instruction and the standard of examination. It is an academic question in which the Court should not disturb the decision taken by the University. The apex Court observed that the appellants therein were not eligible for admission to the Engineering Degree Course of the Karnataka University and their admission was contrary to the Ordinance prescribing the condition of eligibility. The case at hand is not similar to the aforesaid case and, therefore, it does not lend any support to the peti¬tioner’s case. In the case of Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur, AIR 1989 S.C. 823 , the application of a Diploma-holder in Engineering working as an Instructor in an Engineering College for admission to a Degree Course on study leave was accepted even though it was made after the last date for admis¬sion in the general seats had expired. On consideration of all objections including those raised by the Officer-in-charge of admission that the applicant had obtained less than 60% marks in Diploma examination, the applicant having been communicated with the decision of the Dean as approved by the Vice-Chancellor admitting him to the second year of the Degree Course and the student having deposited the required fees and started attending the class, at a subsequent stage the admission was put in abey¬ance. The apex Court observed that the direction of the Dean putting in abeyance the student’s admission was unsustainable since on examination of all materials, the Dean as well as the Vice-Chancellor admitted the student. The apex Court observed that the direction of the Dean putting in abeyance the student’s admission was unsustainable since on examination of all materials, the Dean as well as the Vice-Chancellor admitted the student. Therefore, the decision has no application to the facts of the present writ petition. 13. In the case of Sanatan Gaudo v. Berhampur University and others, AIR 1990 S.C. 1075 , the appellant passed the M.A. Examination securing more than 40% of the total marks. In 1983 he got admission in Ganjam Law College for 3 year Law course and in 1984 he was promoted to 2nd year course. In 1985 he appeared at the Pre-Law and Inter-Law Examinations held by the Berhampur University to which Ganjam Law College is affiliated and, there¬fore, he was admitted to final year law course in the same col¬lege.Although he was admitted to final law classes his results of Pre-Law and Inter-Law Examinations were not declared on the plea that he was not eligible for admission to law course as he had secured less than 40% marks in his B.A. Examination which was the prescribed minimum qualification contemplated under the Universi¬ty Regulations. Considering the fact that the appellant had submitted his mark-sheet along with the applicant and that he had passed M.A. Examination where he had secured more than 40% marks, the apex Court held that the University is estopped from refusing to declare the result of his examinations or preventing him from pursuing his final year law course. The apex Court have taken the view on consideration of the fact that the petitioner not only had passed the B.A. Examination but had passed the M.A. Examina¬tion securing more than 40% of marks, the eligibility criteria being 40% at the B.A. Examination. 14. In the case of Miss Reeta Lenka v. Berhampur University and another, 1992 (II) OLR 341, the result of the petitioner was declared but shortly thereafter the said result was cancelled on the ground of mass copy. The petitioner claimed promissory estoppel on the plea that after passing the examination she had taken steps for further studies. The matter was considered by the Full Bench. The petitioner claimed promissory estoppel on the plea that after passing the examination she had taken steps for further studies. The matter was considered by the Full Bench. After discussing the scope and effect of promissory estoppel and the previous judicial pronouncements, the Court observed that because opportunity of show cause and hearing was not given before withdrawal/cancellation of the result and be¬cause the petitioner had already pursued the higher studies in the meantime, she deserved protection. However, in paragraph-10 of the judgment, the Full Bench observed as under : “Because of the above, we are of the view that public inter¬est and equity demand that the doctrine of promissory estoppel should not be extended to that extent where cancellation of the result would not be permitted by the Courts virtually in any case, which would be the effect if the ratio of Rajkishore’s case is upheld. This apart, it may be remembered that principle of promissory estoppel is available only where the person concerned has changed or altered his position. Taking of steps like appli¬cation for admission in higher courses or seeking of job or registration with employment exchange would not amount to change or alteration of position.” The facts of that case are not similar to the one at hand and, therefore, the same has no application to the present case. 15. In this context, the decision in A.P. Christians Medi¬cal Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another, AIR 1986 SC 1490 is necessary to be noticed. In that case, a contention was raised that the students having been admitted into the MBBS course of the institution, interests of the students should not be sacrificed because of the conduct or folly of the management and that they should be permitted to appear at the University examination notwithstanding the circumstance that permission and affiliation had not been granted to the institu¬tion. The apex Court observed that “any direction of the nature sought would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws”. In recent past, the apex Court in Regional Officer, C.B.S.E. v. Ku. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws”. In recent past, the apex Court in Regional Officer, C.B.S.E. v. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran and others AIR 2003 SC 3720 , referring to several earlier judgments including the judgment in A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society (supra), held : “In the background of the law as laid down by this Court, we find that in the case in hand the fact situation was even worse as compared to the decision cited above. The student, namely, re¬spondent No.1 had failed to clear her class IX examination which was a necessary requirement as provided under the bye-laws of the Board so as to be entitled to appear in the class X examination conducted by the Board. Despite notice, no one has put in appear¬ance on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 to indicate any fact or circumstance so as to take any different view. Condoning the lapses or overlooking the legal requirements in consideration of mere sympathy factor does not solve the problem rather breeds more violations in the hope of being condoned. It disturbs the discipline of the system and ultimately adversely affects the academic standards.” 16. In the case of Ram Pretti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and others AIR 2003 SC 4268 , the writ petitioner before the High Court appeared at the In¬termediate Examination of the U.P. Board. His result was shown as withheld as a suspected case of using unfair means. He was issued a provisional mark-sheet by Principal of his College. The mark-sheet surprisingly did not show that his result had been with¬held. The petitioner did not apply for final mark sheet nor cer¬tificate of passing the examination. On the basis of provisional mark-sheet he took his admission in B.A. without disclosing the fact that his result has been withheld and passed B.A. Examina¬tion as well as M.A. Examination. He also got employment as a Teacher. Subsequently, some enquiry was made about his result. Thereupon the Principal of the College informed the writ peti¬tioner that his result for Intermediate Examination has been can¬celled. He also got employment as a Teacher. Subsequently, some enquiry was made about his result. Thereupon the Principal of the College informed the writ peti¬tioner that his result for Intermediate Examination has been can¬celled. The writ petitioner challenged cancellation of this result of Intermediate Examination on the ground (i) that she was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before cancellation of his examination; (ii) that the cancellation after more than 10 years was wholly arbitrary and illegal; and (iii) that he having passed the B.A. and M.A. Examinations had secured appointment as a Teacher in the College and as such equity demands that the order cancelling the result of his Intermediate Examination be set aside. The apex Court held that plea of lack of opportunity of hearing is not tenable in view of positive case of the Board that an opportunity of hearing had been given to him by the Board, inasmuch as, in a case of mass copying the principle of natural justice need not be strictly complied with. Ultimately, the Court held that there is no equity in favour of the respond¬ent who knew the position. 17. In this context, a decision in Paradise Printers and others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others AIR 1988 SC 354 is also relevant to be considered. The apex Court in the said case refused to apply the principle of promissory estoppel and held that the authorities cannot give assurance contrary to the statutory rules. The authorities who are bound by the rules of procedure cannot make any representation or promise to allot particular sites to the applicants. Even if they make such prom¬ises or assurance, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to compel them to carry out the promise or assurance, which is contrary to law. 18. In the conspectus of the decisions referred to above, there cannot be any doubt that in the fact-situation of the case, the principle of promissory estoppel has no application to the present case and, as such, the petitioner having no basic quali¬fication for admission to the course in an affiliated college, cannot demand promissory estoppel. 19. In view of the foregoing discussions and conclusions, we find no merit in the writ petition, which are accordingly dis¬missed. 19. In view of the foregoing discussions and conclusions, we find no merit in the writ petition, which are accordingly dis¬missed. However, as a measure of compensation for the sufferings of the petitioner, the management of the Siddheswar College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Amarda Road shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner. P. K. MOHANTY, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.