JUDGMENT T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. Heard Ms. Puspa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-union and also Mr. Jaial Uddin, learned Addl. GA appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. FACTUN BACKGROUND The petitioner is a registered trade union having Registration No. 19/ 68 and affiliated to the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC). The petitioner-union was formed by the Grade-III and IV employees working in the Department of Electricity, Government of Manipur and its main objects are: (a) To improve and regularize the working conditions and the wages of all the employees employed in the electricity Department as workmen. (b) To improve their economic, civic and cultural conditions. (c) To safeguard their economic, civic, social and legal interest by negotiations and conciliation with the employers, the Government of Manipur and in the last resort conducting legal protest and strikes. (d) To foster a spirit of solidarity among the employees and a sense of unity among the working people. (e) It shall amalgamate or be affiliated to other institution of similar nature having kindred objects. (f) It shall hove regional and branch units run and organized with the kindred objects, etc. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioner-union is praying for a direction, directing the State respondents to implement fully the order of the Government of Manipur being No. 26/2/88-Power, Imphal the 10.1.1995 for upgradation of 571 posts shown therein and under the said Order 173 (one hundred seventy-three) posts of Assistant Linemen were upgraded to the Switch Board Attendants. The petitioner-union also prayed in the present writ petition for filling up 102 vacant posts of Junior Bill Clerks and Meter Readers caused due to promotion to the immediate higher post of Junior Commercial Clerk and also for filling up the 136 posts of Switch Board Attendants by the 136 Assistant Linemen. 4. The facts, leading to the reliefs sought for, in the present writ petition, indicated above is that pursuant to a strike notice by the members of the petitioner-union for redressal of their grievance, a memorandum of settlement was entered into between the members of the petitioner-union and the Government of Manipur on 19.10.1991. 4. The facts, leading to the reliefs sought for, in the present writ petition, indicated above is that pursuant to a strike notice by the members of the petitioner-union for redressal of their grievance, a memorandum of settlement was entered into between the members of the petitioner-union and the Government of Manipur on 19.10.1991. By the said memorandum dated 19.10.1991 the Government of Manipur had agreed that a committee headed by hon'ble Minister of State, (Power) has to examine and consider the case for upgradation of essential posts in the department, i.e., Electricity Department and also that the examination of requirements of all the categories of posts including upgradation and amendment of the Recruitment Rules wherever necessary as such and it would take about 3 months' time. For easy reference the memorandum dated 19.10.1991 is quoted hereunder: MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT ABOUT DEMANDS OF MANIPUR ELECTRICITY EMPLOYEES UNION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND UNION REPRESENTATIVES The Manipur Electricity Employees Union had submitted a Memorandum containing their demands to the Government on 4th September, 1991. The demands of the Union have been considered by the Government. After considering and discussing their demands the following were agreed. (1) Proposal for conversion of Muster Roll into Worked-Charged employees is under active stage of consideration and orders are likely to be issued within a day or two. (2) Government has set up a Committee headed by Hon'ble Minister of State (Power) to examine and consider the cases for upgradation of essential posts in the Department. This matter involves the examination of the requirement of all categories of posts including upgradation and amendment of Recruitment Rules wherever necessary and as such likely to take about two months' time. (3) As regards the payment of allowances such as Risk Allowance, High Voltage Allowance and Shift Allowance, the Union has already been informed to bring suitable orders issued in this regard under Central Pay Commission and then these would be given. (4) Overtime Allowance wherever required will be given and the Electricity Department can process this case accordingly. (5) Issue regarding pensionary benefits for the Worked-Charged service period of the regular employees is under active consideration of the Government. (6) Steps have been taken to improve the working of Linemen Training Centre. The Manipur Electricity Employees Union agrees to withdraw the strike notice with immediate effect. 5. (5) Issue regarding pensionary benefits for the Worked-Charged service period of the regular employees is under active consideration of the Government. (6) Steps have been taken to improve the working of Linemen Training Centre. The Manipur Electricity Employees Union agrees to withdraw the strike notice with immediate effect. 5. There were further agitation and demands made by the petitioner-union as the State Government did not fulfill their commitments made in the said memorandum of settlement dated 19.10.1991. Later on a memorandum of understanding was again signed on 13.7.1994 between the Government and the representatives of the petitioner-union wherein one of the understandings arrived at is that: (1) the report of the work study committee constituted by the department of power regarding upgradation of essential posts has been received only recently. It would take some time to examine the report and take a final decision. It was agreed that re-organization, amendment of R. Rs and up-gradation of essential posts along with laying down of efficiency norms would be finalized/completed within two months' time. 6. It is stated that pursuant to the said memorandum of understanding, the Government of Manipur, partially fulfilling their commitment, according to the petitioner-union, issued order being No. 26/2/88-Power, dated Imphal 10.1.1995 for upgradation of 571 posts in the Power Department (Electricity Department), Government of Manipur, which read as follows:- GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR SECRETARIAT, POWER DEPARTMENT ORDERS Imphal, Dated – 10.1.1995 No. 26/2/88-Power: The Governor of Manipur is pleased to order to the upgradation of 571 posts shown in column No. 2 to immediate higher post shown in column No. 4 with the abolition of the lower post with effect from the date on which the post are actually filled up. A – Line Cadre Sl. No. Name of Post (Original Post) No. of Post Name of Post (Upgraded) 1. Assistant Lineman 192 Lineman 2. Assistant Lineman 6 Turbine Operator 3. Assistant Lineman 5 Pump Attendant 4. Assistant Lineman 173 Switch Board Attendant 5. Assistant Lineman 4 Assistant Electrician B – Commercial Cadre Sl. No. Name of Post (Original Post) No. of Post Name of Post (Upgraded) 1. Assistant Lineman 10 Head Commercial Clerk 2. Assistant Lineman 17 Senior Commercial Clerk 3. Assistant Lineman 2 Senior Store Assistant 4. Assistant Lineman 102 Junior Cash Collector 5. Assistant Lineman 1.8 Assistant Meter Reader 6. Assistant Lineman 3 Crane Operator Nos. 7. Junior Ledger Clerk 35 Meter Reader 8. Assistant Lineman 10 Head Commercial Clerk 2. Assistant Lineman 17 Senior Commercial Clerk 3. Assistant Lineman 2 Senior Store Assistant 4. Assistant Lineman 102 Junior Cash Collector 5. Assistant Lineman 1.8 Assistant Meter Reader 6. Assistant Lineman 3 Crane Operator Nos. 7. Junior Ledger Clerk 35 Meter Reader 8. Junior Store Assistant 4 Meter Reader Total = 571 Posts 7. It is said that on the basis of the said order of the Government of Manipur dated 10.1.1995 a number of incumbents, who were holding lower posts in the department had been upgraded to their respective immediate higher posts vide various orders issued by the Government. Out of the said upgraded 571 posts, as many as 173 (one hundred seventy three) posts of Assistant Linemen had been earmarked for upgradation to the posts of Switch Board Attendants. Out of the said 173 posts of Assistant Linemen, 37 Assistant Linemen had already been promoted to the immediate higher post of Switch Board Attendants on the basis of a class-III DPC vide office order No. 519, Imphal 12.10.2000 issued by the Chief Engineer (Power), Government of Manipur, as such, 136 posts of Assistant Linemen are yet to be upgraded. 8. As the State Government did not take further steps for upgradation of the remaining 136 posts of Assistant Linemen to the higher post of Switch Board Attendants in terms of the said order of the Government of Manipur dated 10.1.1995 and the said memorandums of understanding, the petitioner-union submitted various representations including the representations submitted on 5.8.2002, 21.6.2003 and 16.7.2003 for effective implementation of the said Government order dated 10.1.1995 by promoting the remaining 136 Assistant Linemen to the immediate higher posts of Switch Board Attendants as had been done in the case of 37 Assistant Linemen and also for filling up 102 resultant vacant posts of Junior Bill Clerks and Meter Readers caused due to promotion to the immediate higher post of Junior Commercial Clerks. 9. It is also further case of the petitioner-union that the Government of Manipur, Finance Department had issued order being No. 16/21/2001-PIC (A) dated 11.7.2001 (or downsizing or right sizing of the posts in different departments of the State Government. 9. It is also further case of the petitioner-union that the Government of Manipur, Finance Department had issued order being No. 16/21/2001-PIC (A) dated 11.7.2001 (or downsizing or right sizing of the posts in different departments of the State Government. In that order for downsizing or right sizing, the posts of Switch Board Attendants and Junior Bill Clerks and Meter Readers of the Electricity Department, Government of Manipur are not included in the list of posts which are to be downsized or abolished. It is also stated that there was no ban on promotion and as the up gradations so far made were by way of promotion by holding regular DPC, there is no legal hurdle for upgradation of the said remaining 136 posts of Assistant Linemen in pursuant to the said order of the Government of Manipur dated 10.1.1995. The Chief Engineer, Power, Government of Manipur under his letter dated 23.11.2002 sought approval of the Government of Manipur to one time upgradation of 136 number of Assistant Linemen to the immediate higher posts of Switch Board Attendants by taking into account the long experience and expertise acquired by the employees in the Department. It is alleged that the State respondents had not taken any concrete action pursuant to the said letter of the Chief Engineer (Power), Government of Manipur dated 23.11.2002. Ultimately, having no alternative, the petitioner-union also issued legal notice dated 25.11.2003 for full implementation of the said memorandums of understanding, i.e., MOD dated 19.10.1991 and 13.7.1994 signed between the Government of Manipur and representatives of the petitioner-union by making necessary amendment in the Recruitment Rules and promoting 136 Assistant Linemen to the immediate higher posts of Switch Board Attendants and also to fill up 102 resultant vacant posts of Junior Bill Clerks and Meter Readers caused due to promotion to the immediate higher posts of Junior Commercial Clerks which was allowed by the Government, pursuant to the decision of the Cabinet Committee vide order No. 26/2/ 88-Power dated 10.1.1995. 10. In the present writ petition, the petitioner-union contended that there is no intangible differentia between the 37 Assistant Linemen who had been promoted to the upgraded posts of Switch Board Attendants by the said office order dated 12.10.2000 issued by the Chief Engineer (Power), Government of Manipur and the remaining 136 Assistant Linemen for promotion to the immediate higher posts of Switch Board Attendants. As the State respondents have not fully implemented the said memorandums of understanding dated 19.10.1991 and 13.7.1994, the petitioner-union filed the present writ petition. 11. The State respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed joint Affidavit-in-opposition. In the Affidavit-in-opposition the State respondents categorically contended that as per the Government order the said remaining 136 posts of Switch Board Attendants mentioned in the said order of the Government of Manipur dated 10.1.1995 are to be filled up, i.e., as per the Recruitment Rules, the posts of Switch Board Attendants are to be filled up: (a) 50% by promotion from Matriculate/HSLC or equivalent Engine Jugali/Khalasi possessing Electrician/Wireman Trade certificate with 3 (three) years regular service in the grade and (b) 50% by D.R. 12. The State respondents further contended that out of the said upgraded 173 posts of Switch Board Attendants only 37 numbers of upgraded posts of Switch Board Attendants were filled up by promotion from the Assistant Linemen and Jugali who possessed trade certificates in the said office order No. 519 dated 12.10.2000 on the recommendation of DPC held on 7.8.1999. 13. For filling up all the remaining 136 number of upgraded posts of Switch Board Attendants a proposal was received by the Administrative Department from the office of the Chief Engineer (Power)/Electricity Department, for consideration for promoting matriculate Assistant. Linemen, Jugali and Khalasi vide letter No. 3/87/97-CE(P)/11645 dated 23.11.2002 (letter dated 23.11.2002 mentioned in the writ petition) by relaxing technical qualification of trade certificate and also by inserting Assistant Linemen in the Recruitment Rules. The Administrative Department had referred the said proposal to the DP, but the proposal had not been accepted by the DP, Government of Manipur with the observation that "one time relaxation of Recruitment Rules for a large number of employees (136) will not be appropriate, particularly because of the technical qualification prescribed for specified posts. It will set a wrong precedent for future, not only for Power Department but also other departments, in the Government where from demand of similar nature may arise." The said opinion of the DP, Government of Manipur had been communicated to the Chief Engineer (Power), Government of Manipur vide Government letter No. 26/2/88-Power (Pt.) dated 31.10.2003. The respondents further contended that for that reason the said remaining 136 posts of upgraded Switch Board Attendants have not yet filled up. 14. The respondents further contended that for that reason the said remaining 136 posts of upgraded Switch Board Attendants have not yet filled up. 14. The respondents further contended that in respect of filling up 10 numbers of resultant vacancies, (i.e., 80 posts of Junior Bill Clerks and 22 posts of Meter Readers), the said resultant vacancies are to be filled up as per the method of Recruitment Rules and number of sanctioned posts. Total number of sanctioned posts and method of Recruitment Rules for the post of Bill Clerk and Meter Readers are as follows: In respect of filling up of 102 No. of resultant vacancies, (i.e., 80 posts of Junior Bill Clerk and 22 Posts of Meter Reader), it is pertinent to mention that the said resultant vacancies are to be filled up as per method of Recruitment Rules and numbers of sanctioned post. The total numbers of sanctioned post and method of R. Rs for the post of Junior Bill Clerk and Meter Reader are as follows:- Sl. No. Name of Post Total sanctioned Post Method of R. Rs. 1. Junior Bill Clerk 149 Posts 70% by Direct recruitment and 30% by promotion from the Matriculate Grade IV Employees 2. Meter Reader 36 Posts 100% by promotion from Assistant Meter Reader Accordingly, it is 104, (i.e., 70% of 149) posts for Direct Recruitment and 45 (30% of 149) posts for promotion for the post of Junior Bill Clerk. It is pertinent to mention that at present, there is no eligible candidate for promotion quota to 45 Nos. of vacant post of Junior Bill Clerk. In respect of the Meter Reader there are only 14 Nos. of eligible candidates for 36 post of Meter Reader. In fact, 102 Nos. of Resultant vacant post (i.e., 80 post of Junior Bill Clerk and 22 post of Meter Reader) are to be filled up as under:- Sl. No. Name of post Nos. of resultant vacant post and to be filled up 1. Junior Bill Clerk 45 posts by promotion from Matriculate Grade-IV and 35 Posts by Direct Recruitment 2. Meter Reader 22 posts by promotion from Assistant Meter Reader Hence, total Nos. of resultant vacant post are 102 posts. No. Name of post Nos. of resultant vacant post and to be filled up 1. Junior Bill Clerk 45 posts by promotion from Matriculate Grade-IV and 35 Posts by Direct Recruitment 2. Meter Reader 22 posts by promotion from Assistant Meter Reader Hence, total Nos. of resultant vacant post are 102 posts. Further, it is pertinent to mention that for filling up of 45 posts of Junior Bill Clerk and 22 post of Meter Header by promotion a proposal was received by the Administrative Department vide letter No. 3/87/97-CE(P)/ 6765 dated 28.9.2003 and the same is under process. 15. The respondents in their Affidavit-in-opposition further contended that subsequently the Government of Manipur, as a policy decision had issued an order for complete ban on new creation and upgradation of posts vide Government Order No. 19.1.93-FR dated 19.10.1999 and imposed ban on direct recruitment and that appointment against the existing vacancy will be frozen vide Government Order No. 14/6/1995-DB(Pt.) dated 6.11.1999. As a result, 136 numbers of posts of Switch Board Attendants could not be filled up. Therefore, the Government of Manipur, for the aforementioned policy decision and the said decision of the Government of Manipur in the interest of public as well as the decision of the Government of Manipur not to relax the technical qualification prescribed for the specified jobs, are unable to implement fully the said memorandums of understanding dated 11.10.1991 and 13.7.1994. 16. The main thrust of the petitioner-union, for seeking the reliefs sought for in the present writ petition is that the State respondents are bound to implement the said memorandums of understanding according to the rule of promissory estoppel inasmuch as the Supreme Court in a catena of cases held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be used not only merely as a shield but also as a sword and for forming cause of action., Therefore, according to the petitioner-union it would be permissible to seek the reliefs, sought for in the present writ petition basing on the doctrine of promissory estoppel for insisting upon the Government of Manipur to fully implement the said memorandums of understanding dated 19.10.1991 and 13.7.1994. 17. Ms. 17. Ms. Puspa, learned Counsel for the petitioner-union, in order to buttress the said main thrust of the petitioner-union that according to the doctrine of promissory estoppel the State respondents could be insisted upon to fully implement the said memorandums dated 19.10.1991 and 13.7.1994 had relied on the decision of this Court in (1) Shree Sanyeeji Ispat (P.) Ltd. and Ann vs. State of Assam and other, 2006 (2) GLT 397 (2) Union of India and other vs. Shree Ganapati Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. and other, 2006 (4) GLT 1 (3) Sunrise Biscuits Co. Ltd. and another vs. State of Assam and other, 2006 (Supp) 1 GLT 211. 18. This Court (DB), (incidentally 1 am one of the party) in Shree Ganapati Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. and other, (supra) had discussed the limitation in applicability of doctrine of promissory estoppel in a given case and also to take benefit of the said doctrine, one of the necessary conditions for invoking the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel is altering the position by the promisee acting in reliance on the promise made by the Government knowing that it would be acted on by the promisee (Sic. Promisor). It is alteration of position, and not necessarily damage or detriment or prejudice suffered by a party. The fact in that case is totally different from that of the instant case. So also, the fact of those cases of Shree Sanyeeji Ispat (P) Ltd. and another (supra) and Sunrise Biscuits Co. Ltd. (supra) are also different from the present case. It is fairly well settled law that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background fact of that case. It is settled long time ago that the case is only an authority for what it actually decides and not what logically followed from it. In this regard, we may profitably refer to some of the decisions of the Apex Court in Ambika Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat, (1987) 1 SCC 213 (vide SCC p. 221 para 18) Apex Court observed:- 18. The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. 19. The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. 19. In Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 111 (vide SCC p. 130, para 59) Apex Court observed. 59. It is also well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the presidential value of a decision. As held in Bharat Petroleum. Corporation Ltd. vs. N.R. Vairamani, (2004) 8 SCC 579 a decision cannot be relied on without disclosing the factual situation. In the same judgment Apex Court also observed: (SCC pp. 584-85, paras 9-12) 9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of courts are neither to be read as Eculid's theorems nor as provisions of a statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In Lord Graving Dock Co. Ltd. vs. Norton, 1951 AC 737 Lord Mac Dermott observed (All ER p.14-C-D). The matter cannot, or course, be settled merely by treating the Ipsissima verba of Willes, J as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge. 10. In Home Office vs. Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. (1970) 2 All ER 294 (HL) (All ER p.297 g-h) Lord Reid said, Lord Atkin's speech...is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in circumstances. Megarry, J in Shepherd Homes. 10. In Home Office vs. Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. (1970) 2 All ER 294 (HL) (All ER p.297 g-h) Lord Reid said, Lord Atkin's speech...is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in circumstances. Megarry, J in Shepherd Homes. Ltd. vs. Sandham (No. 2) (1971) 2 All ER 1267observed: (All ER p. 127d) One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of even Russel, LJ as if it were an Act of Parliament. And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board Lord Moms, (1972) 1 All ER 749[HL (E)] said: (All ER p. 761c) There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or a judgment as though they were words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the wetting of the (acts of a particular case. 11. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. 12. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus: Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive. Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path of justice clear of obstructions which could impede it. 20. This Court is not disputing the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforesaid cases. In other words, this Court is fully endorsing the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforesaid cases. My plea is to keep the path of justice clear of obstructions which could impede it. 20. This Court is not disputing the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforesaid cases. In other words, this Court is fully endorsing the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforesaid cases. This Court is clear that in a given case, even when the promise is not barred by law, the Government is permissible to resile from the promise made by it, if it is capable to show that carrying out the promise shall certainly prejudice the larger interest of the public as well is adversely affect the efficient functioning of the concerned department and interest of the other employees at large. When the Government is able to show that the public interest would be prejudiced if the Government were required to carry out the promise, the court have to balance the public interest vis-a-vis position of the promisee, who had altered his position, and it is the court which has to eventually determine which way the equity lies. If the Government wants to resist the liability, it will have to disclose the case what are the fact and circumstances on account of which the Government claims to be exempted from the liability. It would be for the court to decide whether those facts and circumstances are such as to render it inequitable to enforce the liability against the Government. 21. The doctrine of promissory estoppel had been discussed and defined by the Apex Court in a catena of cases some of which are (1) Collector of Bombay vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay and other, AIR 1951 SC 469 , (2) Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and other vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549 , (3) Union of India and other vs. Anglo Afghan Agencies etc. AIR 1968 SC 718 , (4) Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. AIR 1968 SC 718 , (4) Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council, 1970 (1) SCC 582 , (5) Woodhouse Ltd. vs. Nigerian Produce Ltd. (1972) 2 HER 271, (6) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and other, 1979 (2) SCC 409 , (7) Jit Ram Shivkumar vs. State of Haryana 1981 (1) SCC 11 , (8) Council for Civil Service Union vs. Minister for the Civil Services 1985 AC 374, (9) Union of India and other vs. D Godfrey Philips India Ltd. 1985 (4) SCC 369 , (10) ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards vs. Mandal Revenue Officers, A.P. 1996 (6) SCC 634 , (11) Kasinka Trading vs. Union of India 1997 (1) SCC 274, (12) Shrijee Sales Corporation vs. Union of India, 1997 (3) SCC 398 , (13) S.T.O. vs. Sree Durga Oil Mills, 1998 (1) SCC 572 , (14) State of Bihar and other vs. Suprnbhat Steel Ltd. and other 1999 (1) SCC 31 , (15) Sharma Transport vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2002 (2) SCC 188 , (16) State of Punjab vs. Nestle India Ltd. and another, 2004 (6) SCC 465 , (17) Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. Case, 2005 (1) SCC 625 , (18) Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. and another vs. State of Haryana, 2006 (3) SCC 620 and (19) State of Jharkhand vs. Tata Cummins Ltd. and other, 2006 (4) SCC 57 . 22. The Rule of promissory estoppel being equitable doctrine cannot be reduced to a rigid and inflexible doctrine. Principle may have to be moulded to suit the particular fact situation. The predominant object is to do justice between the parties and to extend the equitable treatment to them. The doctrine is thus, as an aspect of concept of fairness which itself is nothing but reflection of accepted moral standard. Principle may have to be moulded to suit the particular fact situation. The predominant object is to do justice between the parties and to extend the equitable treatment to them. The doctrine is thus, as an aspect of concept of fairness which itself is nothing but reflection of accepted moral standard. The true principle of promissory estoppel which appear to be settled as on date is that "where one party has by his word or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise or representation which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the future knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise or representation is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise or representation would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so, having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties." Reference decision of the Apex Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and other, (1979) 2 SCC 409 . The Apex Court in M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co Ltd. (supra) further held that when the Government is able to show that in view of the facts as have transpired since the making of the promise, public interest would be prejudiced if the Government were required to carry out the promise, the court would have to balance the public interest in the Government carrying out a promise made to a citizen which has induced the citizen to act upon it and alter his position and the public interest likely to suffer if the promise were required to be carried out by the Government and determine which way the equity lies. The relevant portion of the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Motilal Padampal Sugar Mills Co Ltd. (supra) is quoted hereunder: The doctrine of promissory estoppel is a significant judicial contribution in that direction. But it is necessary to point out that since the doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires. But it is necessary to point out that since the doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires. If it can be shown by the Government that having regard to the facts as they have transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government to the promise made by it, would not raise an equity in favour of the promisee and enforce the promise against the Government. The doctrine of promissory estoppel would be displaced in such a case because, on the facts, equity would not require that the Government should be held bound by the promise made by it. When the Government is able to show that in view of the facts as have transpired since the making of the promise, public interest would be prejudiced if the Government were required to carry out the promise, the court would have to balance the public interest in the Government carrying out a promise made to a citizen which has induced the citizen to act upon it and alter his position and the public interest likely to suffer if the promise; were required to be carried out by the Government and determine which way the equity lies. It would not be enough for the Government just to say that public interest requires that the Government should not be compelled to carry out the promise or that the public interest would suffer if the Government were required to honour it. The Government cannot, as Shaj, J., pointed out in the Indo-Afghan Agencies case, claim to be exempt from the liability to carry out the promise "on some indefinite and undisclosed around of necessity or expediency", nor can the Government claim to be the sole judge of its liability and repudiate it "on an ex parte appraisement of the circumstances". If the Government wants in resist the liability it will have to disclose to the court what are the facts and circumstances on account of which the Government claims to be exempt from the liability and it would be for the court to decide whether those facts and circumstances are such as to render it inequitable to enforce the liability against the Government. Mere claim of change of policy would not be sufficient to exonerate the Government from the liability: the Government would have to show what precisely is the changed policy and also its reason and justification so that the court can judge for itself which way the public interest lies and what the equity of the case demands. It is only if the court is satisfied, on proper and adequate material placed by the Government, that overriding public interest requires that the Government should not be held bound by the promise but should be free to act unfettered by it, that the court would refuse to enforce the promise against the Government. The court would not act on the mere ipse dixit of the Government, for it is the court which has to decide and not the Government whether the Government should be held exempt from liability. 23. This Court (DB) in Shree Ganapati Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. and other, (supra) in para 31 of the GLT observed that: 31. In Union of India and other vs. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. (1985)4 SCC 369 the doctrine of promissory estoppel was pressed into service based on a letter dated 24th May, 1976 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs intimating the Cigarette Manufacturers' Association that "instructions have been issued to the Collector of Central Excise that the cost of corrugated fireboard containers in question does not form part of the value of cigarettes for the purposes of excise duly." The manufacturers of cigarette acting upon the representation so made, proceeded on the basis that the cost of corrugated fiberboard containers wore not liable to be included in the value of cigarette for the purpose of assessment of excise duty and did not recover from the wholesale dealers, to whom they sold the cigarettes, any amount by way of excise duty attributable to the cost of such corrugated fibreboard containers. The representation contained in the letter dated 24th May, 1976 continued to be in operation until 2nd November, 1982 when the Central Board of Excise and Customs had withdrawn the same and cancelled it on re-examination of the issue in consultation with the Ministry of Law. In that case also no notification granting exemption from duty had been issued. The whole claim of the manufacturers was based on the letter dated 24th May, 1976 itself. In that case also no notification granting exemption from duty had been issued. The whole claim of the manufacturers was based on the letter dated 24th May, 1976 itself. The Supreme Court declared that the manufacturers would be entitled to exclusion of the cost of corrugated fibreboard containers from the value of cigarettes during the period 24th May, 1976 to 2nd November, 1982. The relief has been granted on the ground of promissory estoppel against the central Board of Excise and Customs and the Central Government. The representation contained in the letter dated 24th May, 1976 made by the Central Board of Excise and Customs has been treated as a promise made to the cigarette manufacturers and held that the Central Board of Excise and Customs as well as the Central Government was bound by the promise so made. The width, scope and amplitude of the doctrine of promissory estoppel has been explained by the Supreme Court as follows: The true principle of promissory estoppel is that where one party has by his word or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise or representation which is intended to create legal relation which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise or representation is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise or representation would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so, having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties. The court, however, clarified that "there can be no promissory estoppel against the Legislature in the exercise of its legislative functions nor can the Government or public authority be debarred by promissory estoppel from enforcing a statutory prohibition. It is equally true that promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the Government or a public authority to carry out a representation or promise which is contrary to law or which was outside the authority or power of the officer of the Government or of the public authority to make. It is equally true that promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the Government or a public authority to carry out a representation or promise which is contrary to law or which was outside the authority or power of the officer of the Government or of the public authority to make. We may also point out that the doctrine of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires; if it can be shown by the government or public authority that having regard to the facts as they have transpired, it would he inequitable to hold the Government or public authority to the promise or representation made by it, the court would not raise an equity in favour of the person to whom the promise or representation is made and enforce the promise or representation against the Government or public authority. The doctrine of promissory estoppel would be displaced in such a case, because on the facts, equity would not require that the Government or public authority should be held bound by the promise or representation made by it. 24. This Court keeping in view the multi facet in running the Government in the factual context of the present case observes that the Government has to function as a cohesive body and its different organs or the departments have to act in tandem with each other and in harmony with each other on the principles of collective responsibility. The constitutional scheme of the Government does not permit the Government to work in violation of the principles of collective responsibility. Therefore, the Power Department, Government of Manipur, Department of Personnel, Government of Manipur have to function as a cohesive body and in harmony, with each other on the principles of collective responsibility. In the factual circumstances of the present case it appears that the State Government, for the reasons in their joint Affidavit-in-opposition, is resiling from full implementation of the said memorandums dated 19.10.1991 and 13.7.1994 in the public interest and also because of the policy decision. As held by the Apex Court and this Court in the aforesaid cases, this Court is required to determine which way equity lies and also the present case is such as to render it inequitable to enforce liability against the Government. As held by the Apex Court and this Court in the aforesaid cases, this Court is required to determine which way equity lies and also the present case is such as to render it inequitable to enforce liability against the Government. In the present case, it appears that the Government had already taken the policy decision by issuing order for a complete ban on creation of posts and upgradation of posts and also by another order imposed ban on direct recruitment and all the appointment against the existing vacancies will be frozen and also that if the said 136 posts of Switch Board Attendants are to be filled up by upgradation by the unqualified 136 Assistant Linemen who are the members of the petitioner-union, the Government has to compromise with technical qualifications prescribed for the posts of Switch Board Attendants and there by resulting to allowing the persons having no technical qualification to carry out the technical works at the risk of the lives of the residents of the State of Manipur. 25. Mr. Jalal Uddin, learned Addl. GA by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India and other, (2002) 2 SCC 333 contended that the said policy decision for imposing ban on upgradation of the posts and also filling up of the vacancies in different posts to mitigate the financial constraints of the Government of Manipur shall not be interfered with by this Court by invoking the power of judicial review inasmuch as the said policy decision is not contrary to any statutory provisions or the Constitution of India. Mr. Jalal, further contended that in taking the policy decision the members of the petitioner-union have no right of pre-decisional notice. Para Nos. 92, 93, and 94 of the SCC in Balco (supra) read as follows: 92. In a democracy, it is the prerogative of each elected Government to follow its own policy. Often a change in Government may result in the shift in focus or change in economic policies. Any such change may result in adversely affecting some vested interests. Unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the court. 93. Any such change may result in adversely affecting some vested interests. Unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the court. 93. Wisdom and advisability of economic policies are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless it can be demonstrated that the policy is contrary to any statutory provision or the Constitution. In other words, it is not for the courts to consider relative merits of different economic policies and consider whether a wiser or better one can be evolved. For testing the correctness of a policy, the appropriate forum is Parliament and not the courts. Hence, the policy was tested and the motion defeated in the Lok Sabha on 1.3.2001. 94. Thus, apart from the fact that the policy of disinvestment cannot be questioned as such, the facts herein show that fair, just and equitable procedure has been followed in carrying out this disinvestment. The allegations of lack of transparency or that the decision was taken in a hurry or there has been an arbitrary exercise of power are without any basis. It is a matter of regret that on behalf of the State of Chhatisgarh such allegations against the Union of India have made without any basis. We strongly deprecate such unfounded averments which have been made by an officer of the said State. 26. This Court is of considered view that it would be inequitable to compel upon the State Government to fill up the Switch Board Attendants by the technically unqualified Assistant Linemen by relaxing the technical qualification prescribed for the specified technical posts pursuant to the memorandums of understanding dated 19.10.1991 and 13.7.1994. Therefore, the law of promissory estoppel being equitable doctrine cannot be enforced upon the State Government, in the interest of the public, to carry out the said promise to fill up the said upgraded posts by the members of the petitioner-union having no technical qualification prescribed for the specified technical jobs and also against the said policy decision of the Government for mitigating the financial constraints and also denying the interest of a large number of technically qualified candidates for the said specified technical job. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is devoid of merit, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.