ORDER Heard the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to issue an order of confirmation of the petitioner as Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor in the Department of Plant Pathology, S.R.I. in Rajendra Agriculture University without requiring a certificate of passing NET examination. 3. It appears that pursuant to an Advertisement No.1/2006/RAU dated 22.2.2006 issued by the respondent University read with corrigendum dated 15.5.2006 (Annexures 1 and 2 respectively) an offer of appointment dated 6.11.2007 was issued (Annexure-3) whereby the petitioner, among others, was offered appointment on the post of Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor. Pursuant thereto the petitioner was selected and joined the post on 12.11.2007 on the terms and conditions enumerated in the said offer of appointment in line with the advertisement and the corrigendum. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had neither cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) nor obtained Ph.D. degree on the date of his selection. However, the petitioner was pursuing his Ph.D. degree at that time. It appears that he sought and was granted permission for withdrawal of 5th semester in the Ph.D. program in terms of R.I. Regulation 48 as evident from the letter dated 21.1.2008 written by the D.R.I –cum- Dean, PGs, R.A.U., Pusa. Some time later, the petitioner resumed his pursuit of Ph.D. degree and was accordingly permitted admission in the monsoon semester 2009-10 in terms of R.I. regulations. 5. On 25.6.2009, a letter was issued (Annexure-6) by the Director (Administration), R.A.U., to the petitioner reminding/ informing him that in terms of the bond executed by the petitioner at the time of his joining, the NET examination had to be cleared within three years from the date of his appointment, failing which his services would be terminated without notice. The petitioner was thus advised to submit his NET/Ph.D. clearance certificate within a stipulated period, failing which his services would be terminated automatically in terms of the agreement bond. 6. The petitioner appears to have successfully completed the requirements for award of Ph.D. degree well within the period of three years of his joining on 12.11.2007, as evident from the notification dated 20.9.2010 (Annexure-9) from the very same respondent University. 7. 6. The petitioner appears to have successfully completed the requirements for award of Ph.D. degree well within the period of three years of his joining on 12.11.2007, as evident from the notification dated 20.9.2010 (Annexure-9) from the very same respondent University. 7. About a year and a half thereafter, the petitioner suddenly received a letter dated 20.3.2012 (Annexure-10) issued by the Director (Administration) of the respondent University, reiterating that the NET examination had to be cleared by the petitioner within a period of five years (the period having been extended from three years) from the date of his joining, which would expire on 11.11.2012. As such if the certificate of passing the NET examination was not furnished by 11.11.2012, the petitioner’s appointment would stand automatically terminated. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that despite pendency of the present writ petition, the respondents issued office order dated 10.11.2012 (Annexure-15) to the effect that the petitioner’s service would stand terminated w.e.f. 11.11.2012 as the petitioner had failed to produce the certificate of having passed the NET examination within the stipulated time of five years. The said letter dated 10.11.2012 has been brought on record by the petitioner in terms of a supplementary affidavit. While no separate I.A. has been filed seeking amendment of the prayer made in the Writ Petition, the petitioner in para 9 of the said supplementary affidavit has sought moulding of the relief in view of the later development as noticed above. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and the demand for NET clearance in his case is unjustified for the following reasons – (i) While admittedly, the advertisement dated 22.2.2006 did require NET clearance as a qualification for appointment, the same was relaxable. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and the demand for NET clearance in his case is unjustified for the following reasons – (i) While admittedly, the advertisement dated 22.2.2006 did require NET clearance as a qualification for appointment, the same was relaxable. (ii) The corrigendum to the advertisement also supported this view as the requirement of NET clearance in the case of candidates having Masters degree was followed by the words “This condition will not be applicable to the candidates having Ph.D. degree in the relevant subject(s).” (iii) The petitioner was pursuing his Ph.D. degree from the very same University where he had been appointed Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor and the fact that he had temporarily withdrawn and later again been permitted for admission to the Ph.D. degree was well known to the respondents, so much so that leave had specifically been granted to enable him to complete the Ph.D. program (Annexure-8). (iv) Letter dated 25.6.2009 (Annexure-6) required the petitioner “to submit NET/Ph.D. clearance certificate” which showed that either certificate would meet the requirement in the petitioner’s case. (v) The fact of having completed the requirements for award of Ph.D. degree in terms of the notification dated 20.9.2012 was brought to the notice of the respondents and was duly accepted by them. (vi) The conduct of the respondents therefore shows that the requirement of NET clearance in the petitioner’s case had been relaxed by the respondents. (vii) Even otherwise there could be little rationale in disqualifying a person such as the petitioner who had completed his Ph.D degree and thus procured a higher qualification than the NET examination. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University, on the other hand, submits that there was no room whatsoever, for any ambiguity, doubt or confusion in the matter and failure to clear the NET examination within the stipulated period of five years from the date of appointment was a complete bar to the petitioner’s continuance on the post, notwithstanding the Ph.D. degree acquired by the petitioner. 11. 11. He submits that the pleas raised by the petitioner are completely unsustainable as will be evident from the following – (i) According to the advertisement dated 22.2.2006 itself, the requirement of clearing the NET examination was a mandatory precondition and, if at all, relaxation in this regard was available only to a candidate having two years’ Teaching and Research or Extension Education experience in a University/ National Institute of repute. No such relaxation had been provided in the case of Ph.D. degree holders, who, at best, were eligible for preferential consideration. (ii) The corrigendum did not also exempt persons such as the petitioner from the NET examination. The words “This condition will not be applicable to the candidates having Ph.D. degree” are referable only to persons who were Ph.D. degree holders at the time of their appointment and not to those who acquired a Ph.D. degree later on. (iii) The offer of appointment dated 6.11.2007 has to be understood in the backdrop of the advertisement and corrigendum and the terms and conditions mentioned therein. As a matter of fact, Clause 18 of the offer of appointment reiterates the necessity for the candidates to pass the NET examination failing which their services would be terminated without notice. The Petitioner cannot claim a right contrary to or beyond the terms of advertisement, corrigendum or Offer of Appointment. (iv) The letter dated 25.6.2009 (Annexure-6) has to be read as a whole. The tenor of this letter is yet again a reiteration of the requirement of clearing the NET examination. Reference to NET/Ph.D. clearance certificate therein cannot be read so as to exempt the petitioner from the requirement of NET clearance. (v) The petitioner was well aware of the situation as he himself in his letter dated 7.4.2009 (Annexure-7) requested two semesters’ special leave for completion of his Ph.D. degree program only in the context of R.I. Regulation 48 and without so much as a whisper that the Ph.D. degree was in satisfaction of the requirements of the conditions of his appointment. (vi) The initial advertisement did not authorize relaxation from NET clearance even in respect of existing Ph.D. holders, which was later amended by the corrigendum. There could thus be no question of relaxation of the condition in the petitioner’s case. (vi) The initial advertisement did not authorize relaxation from NET clearance even in respect of existing Ph.D. holders, which was later amended by the corrigendum. There could thus be no question of relaxation of the condition in the petitioner’s case. Besides, any relaxation of mandatory condition has to be expressly granted were it so intended, and cannot be indirectly inferred as sought to be done by the petitioner. (vii) Acquiring a Ph.D. degree would entitle the petitioner only to preferential appointment in terms of the advertisement and might secure him better prospects in the matter of pay, but cannot substitute the requirement of NET clearance. 12. Having heard the parties at length and considered the materials on record I am unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. In my view, the advertisement does not provide for any relaxation from NET clearance in case of persons having a Ph.D. degree rather only for a relaxation of 5% in the marks and that too only in respect of those Ph.D. degree holders who had passed their Master’s degree prior to 19.9.1991. 13. I am also in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the University that the intention behind the corrigendum was that the condition for NET clearance would not apply only in respect of existing Ph.D. degree holders on the date of their appointment, which is evident from the use of the words “having Ph.D. degree” in the phrase “This condition will not be applicable to the candidates having Ph.D. degree in the relevant subject(s)”. 14. I am also of the view that the letter dated 25.6.2009 (Annexure-6) which forms the main plank of the petitioner’s submissions simply because it advises the petitioner to submit the “NET/Ph.D. clearance certificate”, cannot be read in a manner so as to override the advertisement and corrigendum itself. The totality of the contents of the said letter does not suggest that the petitioner has been granted any relaxation from the mandatory requirement of clearing the NET examination rather the emphasis was clearly on the condition requiring NET clearance in terms of the bond executed by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has not been advised to submit his Ph. D clearance as an alternative to NET clearance. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner then places reliance on the decision reported in AIR 2010 SC 2821 (Union of India & ors. Thus, the petitioner has not been advised to submit his Ph. D clearance as an alternative to NET clearance. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner then places reliance on the decision reported in AIR 2010 SC 2821 (Union of India & ors. vs. Miss Pritilata Nanda) whereas even though the petitioner’s name had not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange as required, yet the Supreme Court granted relief in that case. In my view, this judgment cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. Apart from the distinguishable context in which it was rendered, the facts of that case as recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court as noticed by the Supreme Court (para 12 of the judgment) show that all the requirements of the advertisement inviting applications by the Railways had been fulfilled leading to that petitioner’s application being accepted and ultimately the select list contained her name. The present case is one in which the requirements of the advertisement mandated passing the NET examination, which precondition has not been fulfilled by the petitioner. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies on the decision rendered in (1979) 2 SCC 409 (M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) and seeks to employ the doctrine of promissory estoppel to submit that the petitioner had acted upon the promise of the respondents and joined the post, and thus could not be terminated in the manner done. In my view, the principles of promissory estoppel are not applicable in the instant case where the appointment itself was a conditional one and the petitioner failed to fulfill the precondition of passing the NET examination. 17. For the above reasons, I hold that the petitioner was bound to clear the NET examination as a part of the conditions of his appointment which he has clearly failed to demonstrate having done, and as such there is no infirmity in the action of the respondents terminating the petitioner from his post. 18. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.