Nandakumar, J.:- 1. By this writ appeal, the appellants/respondents in the writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 25.8.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No. 39 of 2000. 2. Heard Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned G.A. appearing on behalf of the appellants/Respondents in the writ petition and Mr. S. Jayenta Singh, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr.Ch. Nickel Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner. 3. The fact in concise which gives rise to the filing of the writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C )No. 39 of 2000, by the respondent/ writ petitioner is that in response to the requisition letter dated 25.7.1991 issued by the appellant/respondent no.3 in the writ petition, the Employment Exchange Officer sponsored the respondent/writ petitioner and other eligible candidates for facing the selection committee for appointment to the post of Inspector (Sericulture) in the Deptt. of Sericulture, Manipur. Further, it is said that in response to the said requisition letter issued by the appellant/respondent no.3, the Employment Exchange Officer sponsored a number of eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Superintendent (Sericulture) in the Department of Sericulture, Manipur. 4.The Selection Committee for recruitment to the post of Inspector (Sericulture) in the Department of Sericulture, Govt. of Manipur was held on 2.3.1992. The respondent /writ petitioner also appeared before the selection committee for the post of Inspector (Sericulture) in the Deptt. of Sericulture, Manipur. Similarly, the Selection Committee for the post of Superintendent (Sericulture) was held on 29.2.1992 and two departmental candidates were recommended for appointment by promotion to the post of Superintendent (Sericulture). As such, two vacancies in the posts of Inspector (Sericulture) would arise on the recommendation of the two departmental candidates, i.e. Inspector (Sericulture), to the post of Superintendent (Sericulture). In the proceedings of the selection committee held on 2.3.1992, the said 2(two) vacancies which would be arisen on the promotion of the 2(two) departmental candidates, i.e., the 2(two) Inspector (Sericulture), were considered and another 2(two) vacancies on the retirement of the 2(two) incumbents in the posts of Inspector (Sericulture) were also considered. Taking into consideration of all the vacancies which would be arisen within a short period, the selection committee for the post of Inspector (Sericulture) held on 2.3.1992 recommended the respondent /writ petitioner for keeping in the panel no.1 of the waiting list of the selected candidates. Taking into consideration of all the vacancies which would be arisen within a short period, the selection committee for the post of Inspector (Sericulture) held on 2.3.1992 recommended the respondent /writ petitioner for keeping in the panel no.1 of the waiting list of the selected candidates. The Director of Sericulture, Govt. of Manipur published the list of the candidates under notice dated 6.7.1993 selected by the DPC for the post of Inspector(Sericulture) held on 2.3.1992 and also the said DPC held on 29.2.1992 for the post of Superintendent (Sericulture), Govt. of Manipur. In the list of the selected candidates under the said notice dated 6.7.1993 name of the respondent/writ petitioner appeared at sl.no.1 of the panel list of the selected candidates for appointment to the post of Inspector (Sericulture). 5. Admittedly, soon after the publication of the selected candidates for appointment to the post of Inspector (Sericulture), the Government of Manipur imposed ban on direct recruitment to all the posts in the service of the Govt. of Manipur. Accordingly, the Govt. of Manipur under letter of the Under Secretary (Sericulture), Govt. of Manipur dated 16.12.1992 conveyed the approval of the Government to implement the proceedings of the DPC for appointment to the posts of Inspector (Sericulture) held on 2.3.1992 and the proceedings of the DPC held on 29.2.1992 to the posts of Superintendent (Sericulture) when the ban is lifted. It is said that as the Govt. of Manipur had approved the proceedings of the DPC held on 2.3.1992 for appointment to the post of Inspector(Sericulture) but there was a ban for direct recruitment to all the posts in the service of the Govt. of Manipur, the appellant/respondent no.3 in the writ petition issued the offer letter dated 6.7.1993 for appointment to the post of Inspector(Sericulture) to the petitioner after the ban on direct recruitment to the service of the Govt. of Manipur was lifted. The petitioner also accepted the said offer letter for appointment to the post of Inspector (Sericulture) and she was waiting for issuance of the appointment letter as soon as the ban on direct recruitment to the service of the Govt. of Manipur was lifted. of Manipur was lifted. The petitioner also accepted the said offer letter for appointment to the post of Inspector (Sericulture) and she was waiting for issuance of the appointment letter as soon as the ban on direct recruitment to the service of the Govt. of Manipur was lifted. It is said that the ban on direct recruitment was lifted in the last part of 1998 and after lifting the said ban all the selected candidates for appointment to the post of Inspector (Sericulture) as well as the selected candidates for appointment to the post of Superintendent (Sericulture) were appointed. But the case of the respondent/writ petitioner was left out. Hence, the respondent/writ petitioner filed the writ petition, W.P. (C) No. 39 of 2000. 6. The appellant/respondent also filed the affidavit-inopposition. The only ground taken in their affidavit-inopposition was that the life span of the panel list would be one year six months in the maximum under the office memorandum dated 29.4.1999 and also the appellants/respondents had taken the plea that mere inclusion of the name of the respondent/writ petitioner in the list of the selected candidates or in the waiting list does not confer any enforceable right for appointment after the expiry of the period of validity. The learned Single Judge by giving reasons in the impugned judgment and order dated 25.8.2000 held that the said office memorandum dated 29.4.1999 was not applicable to the panel of the list of the selected candidates in which the name of the respondent/writ petitioner appears at.Sl.No.1 prepared by the DPC held on 2.3.1992, which had been approved by the Govt.of Manipur under its letter dated 16.12.1992 inasmuch as the said memorandum dated 29.4.1999 came into effect only in the month of April, 1999 and also further held that even if under the said office memorandum dated 29.4.1999 the validity of the period of the panel list was one year and six months, the State Government as well as the appellant/respondent no.3 who is the appointing authority had already given effect to the panel of the list of the selected candidates by issuing the said offer letter dated 6.7.1993. The learned Single Judge under the impugned judgment and order had distinguished the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors - vrs - Md. Kalimuddin & ors: AIR 1996 SC 1145 and in the case of Govt. The learned Single Judge under the impugned judgment and order had distinguished the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors - vrs - Md. Kalimuddin & ors: AIR 1996 SC 1145 and in the case of Govt. of Orissa & Ors -vrs - Haraprasad Das: AIR 1998 SC 375 and held that the case of the respondent/writ petitioner is not the case of mere empanelment inasmuch as the appellant/respondent no.3 who is the appointing authority had already issued the offer letter dated 6.7.1993 to the petitioner for appointment to the post of Inspector(Sericulture). The learned Single Judge also held that the principle of promissory estoppels applies in the present situation and the Government is bounded by the said principle. 7. It is fairly well settled in the service jurisprudence that even if vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidate does not acquire indefeasible right to be appointed unless the relevant rules indicates to the contrary. It is, indeed, accepted law that the state has to act bona fide and only for valid reasons the State could refused to make appointment after the selection process has been gone through and also the state cannot act arbitrarily or irrationally in refusing to make appointment from the said select list. In the present case as discussed by the learned Single Judge, it is clear that the appellant/respondents in the writ petition and the appellant/ respondent no.3 had not only decided to implement the proceedings of the said DPC held on 2.3.1992 for appointment to the post of Inspector(Sericulture) and to issue the appointment letter to the Respondent/Writ Petitioner after lifting of the ban on direct recruitment but also in pursuance of their decision the appellant/respondent no.3 had already issued the offer letter dated 6.7.1993 to the respondent/writ petitioner. Over and above, as discussed by the learned Single Judge and also from the records, it appears that all the selected candidates prepared by the said DPC held on 2.3.1992 for appointment to the post of Inspector (Sericulture) and selected candidates for appointment to the post of Superintendent (Sericulture) prepared by the DPC held on 29.2.1992 had already been appointed soon after the ban on direct recruitment to the service of the Govt.of Manipur had been lifted. As the Respondent/Writ Petitioner had already been furnished with the offer form for appointment to the post of Inspector (Sericulture) and the same had been accepted by the respondent/writ petitioner, the respondent/writ petitioner undoubtedly had the legitimate expectation of issuing appointment letter in her favour in the manner the appellants/respondents in the writ petition had issued the appointment letters in the case of other selected candidates for appointment to the post of Inspector(Sericulture) and Superintendent(Sericulture) in the department of Sericulture, Govt. of Manipur. Further, the present case is not the case where the appellant/respondents had decided not to fill up the post of Inspector (Sericulture) in the Department of Sericulture, Govt. of Manipur but the case of the appellant/ respondent is that the validity period of the panel list of the selected candidates had already been expired which according to the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order was not sustainable. We are also endorsing this view of the learned Single Judge. Further, we are also endorsing the view of the learned Single Judge that the principle of promissory estoppels is also applicable in the present case and the appellant/respondents are bound by the said principle. No doubt, the writ court is a court of equity, and writ appeal is an appeal on principle meaning thereby that this court is exercising the co-ordinate jurisdiction and accordingly we examine the legality and validity of the learned Single Judge, it should be set aside and it should be quashed only when there is a patent error on the face of the record and also judgment is against the established/settled principle of law. 8. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the considered view that the appellant/respondents fail to make out any patent error on the face of the record committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned judgment and order dated 25.8.2000. Accordingly, no interference is called for to the impugned judgment and order dated 25.8.2000. Writ Appeal is devoid of merit and hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.