ORDER : The petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that: “The petitioner was enrolled in the Assam Rifles on 05/09/1998 as Rifleman (GD). During the period of his training an opportunity was provided by the authority of Assam Rifles to the interested armed personnel’s having requisite qualification for remustration into nursing trade. The petitioner being 10+2 (Science) applied for the said opportunities, i.e. for remustration of trade from GD category to Nursing Assistant and the Directorate General Assam Rifles vide Signal No. unclass A. 3550 attached the petitioner with 31st Battalion’s MI Room for practical knowledge till detailment of Nursing Assistant classes. The Directorate General Assam Rifles vide H.Q. D.G.A.R. Signal No. A. 4438 dated the 6th day of June, 2000, assured the petitioner that after completion of Nursing Assistant courses he will be remustered from Rfn (GD) to Rfn (Nursing Assistant) at the earliest. In pursuance of the command of the authority of Assam Rifles, the petitioner successfully completed the following courses. a) Nursing Assistant Class-IV, from No. -2, Tech. Trg. Bn. AMC Centre and School, Lucknow-2 in the year 2000. b) Nursing Assistant Class-III, from No. -2, Tech. Trg. Bn. AMC Centre and School, Lucknow-2 in the year 2002. The Directorate General Assam Rifles in pursuance of the recommendation of the Command Hospital (EC), Calcutta order No. 130019/Coy/2002, dated the 4th day of January, 2002, published the Nominal Roll of Nursing Assistant Class-III, Assam Rifles, where the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl. No. 30. By an order dated the 31st day of August, 2008, the Directorate General Assam Rifles attached the petitioner with “Assam Rifles Administrative Support Unit for working with ARASU Hospital, Happy Valley. When the respondent authorities had not taken any steps for conversion of his trade, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Principal Seat by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3399 of 2010 and by an order dated 16th day of June, 2010, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court directed the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 01/06/2009 submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order and further granted liberty to the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if he feels aggrieved by such orders. By an impugned order dated the 30th day of September, 2010, the Directorate General Assam Rifles rejected the claim of the petitioner but copy of the impugned order was not supplied to the petitioner. When one party by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create a legal relationship or affect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom promise is made and it is infact so acted upon by the other party, the promise would be binding on the party making it and he is not entitled to go back upon it. This doctrine of promissory estoppels is a doctrine evolved by equity in order to prevent injustice. From the language used in the aforesaid promise it is crystal clear that the Directorate General Assam Rifles made a clear and unequivocal promise which creates a legal relationship, therefore said promise is binding on the Directorate General Assam Rifles and he is not entitled to go back upon it. Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 also clarified it that after acquiring disability if any person is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with same pay scale and service benefits. Hence this petition”. 2. Mr. H.G. Baruah, learned counsel appeared for and on behalf of the petitioner and submits that, the petitioner joined the Assam Rifles as an Rfn (GD) on 05.09.1998. Thereafter, he was sent for a course called Nursing Assistant Class-III and Class-IV at AMC Centre and School, Lucknow-2 and thereafter, in the year 2008 he was further posted at Assam Rifles Administrative Support Unit for working with ARASU Hospital, Happy Valley. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the course of his argument referred to Annexure-I at Page 14, 15, etc and contended that, the petitioner was promised that, after completion of his Nursing Assistant course, he will be posted as Nursing Assistant and till date, he is working as a Nursing Assistant at Assam Rifles Administrative Support Unit Hospital, Happy Valley. But, unfortunately, he was not remustered nor given the pay and allowances entitled for the Nursing Assistant. But, unfortunately, he was not remustered nor given the pay and allowances entitled for the Nursing Assistant. Hence, this instant writ petition was filed with a prayer that necessary direction may be passed. 3. On the other hand, Mr. R. Debnath, learned CGC appeared for and on behalf of the Union of India submits that, the petitioner could not be remustered or his pay and allowances for Nursing Assistant could not be awarded to him as the recruitment rule, which has come into force in the year 2000 does not permit. 4. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the crux issue which arose before this court is, whether when there is a promise; can the Government come out from the promise? And secondly, when a person is serving as Nursing Assistant, whether he is entitled for the benefits of Nursing Assistant? To search the answer of the issue, I have perused the Annexure-I at Page 14 of the writ petition wherein, it is clearly mentioned that: “Rifleman Joginder Singh comma 31 AR and No. 2003384 Rfn/WC Anil Kumar comma ARTC & S detailed as reserve candidate for said course (.) secondly (.) request att of above pers to unit MI Room for practical knowledge till detailment of class IV and II course (.) thirdly (.) after completion of said course they will be remustered from Rfn/GD comma Rfn/WC to Rfn/NA at the earliest (.) confirm clear”. 5. On perusal of the above contents of the Annexure-I it is clear that, the petitioner was detailed to complete the course of Nursing Assistant of Class IV and II and after completion; he will be remustered from Rifleman to Nursing Assistant at the earliest. I have also perused Annexure-II and III i.e. the Technical Proficiency Certificates issued by AMC Centre and School Lucknow-2. On further perusal of the Annexure-IV at Page 18 of the writ petition, the name of the petitioner appears as a Rifleman/Nursing Assistant 31 Assam Rifles. Annexure-VI made it clear that the petitioner is qualified as Nursing Assistant Class IV and Class III for all purposes including pay and allowances. On further perusal of the Annexure-IV at Page 18 of the writ petition, the name of the petitioner appears as a Rifleman/Nursing Assistant 31 Assam Rifles. Annexure-VI made it clear that the petitioner is qualified as Nursing Assistant Class IV and Class III for all purposes including pay and allowances. For easy reference the same is reproduced herein as under: “MAHINIDESHALYA ASSAM RIFLES DIRECTORATE GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES I. 20013/55/Att/Admn-II/2008/ Dated: 21st Aug, 2008 ORDER No. G/3101762 Rfn/GD Joginder Singh of 31 Assam Rifles presently att with this Dte (Estt Branch) is hereby further ordered to be att with ARASU, Happy Valley for working with ARASU Hospital, Happy Valley as the indl is qualified NA Class-IV & Class-III for all purposes incl pay and allowances. Sd/- Parameswarappa BG Lt Col SO-1 (Adm & Docu) For Brig (Pers) Distributions: 1. Assam Rifles Adm Support Unit Happy Valley Shillong-793007 For info necessary action please. 2. 31 Assam Rifles C/o-99 APO For info and necessary action please. 3. Headquarters 26 Sector Assam Rifles C/o-99 APO For info please. Internal: 4. Est Branch Request desp above indl to ARASU Happy Valley forthwith under Intimation to this Branch. 5. DOC – II, VIII UPAO (31 AR, ARASU) ARGIS, PMS, CPBO For info please”. 6. On perusal of the above contents of different Annexures of the petition and the affidavits on record, it is clear that the petitioner was detailed and sent for the course of Nursing Assistant Class-III and Class-IV at Lucknow and he was successfully qualified in the examination and obtained the necessary certificates. Order dated 21st August, 2008 which is quoted above made it clear that, the petitioner was found qualified as Nursing Assistant Class III and Class IV for all purposes including pay and allowances. Therefore, I do not see any reason why the petitioner cannot serve as a Nursing Assistant. 7. Since till date, the petitioner is working as Nursing Assistant, he is definitely entitled for all the benefits of Nursing Assistant. Now, the question comes, whether the recruitment rule is a bar for remustering the petitioner as Nursing Assistant? Therefore, I do not see any reason why the petitioner cannot serve as a Nursing Assistant. 7. Since till date, the petitioner is working as Nursing Assistant, he is definitely entitled for all the benefits of Nursing Assistant. Now, the question comes, whether the recruitment rule is a bar for remustering the petitioner as Nursing Assistant? The answer is ‘No’ because in Annexure-II of the counter affidavit at Page 19 there is a clause which is reproduced herein as under: “Power of relaxation: The power to relax any of the eligibility criteria will rest with the Director General of Assam Rifles.” Since there is a power for relaxation in the case of the petitioner, the Assam Rifles is bound to consider and relax the criteria if any, which makes possible to remuster the petitioner and to grant his pay and allowances. Law is clear that, when a promise is made, they need to be fulfilled, either by a private body or by a Government. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors: reported in (1979) 2 SCC 442 at Para 24 was pleased to observe that: “Where the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and, in fact, the promisee, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution. It is elementary that in a Republic governed by the rule of law, no one, howsoever high or low is above the law. Everyone is subject to the law as fully and completely as any other and the Government is no exception. It is indeed the pride of constitutional democracy and rule of law that the Government stands on the same footing as a private individual so far as the obligation of the law is concerned: the former is equally bound as the latter. It is indeed difficult to see on what principle can a Government, committed to the rule of law, claim immunity from the doctrine of promissory estoppels. It is indeed difficult to see on what principle can a Government, committed to the rule of law, claim immunity from the doctrine of promissory estoppels. Can the Government say that it is under no obligation to act in a manner that is fair and just or that it is not bound by considerations of “honesty and good faith”? Why should the Government not be held to a high “standard of rectangular rectitude while dealing with its citizens”? 9. For the reasons discussed above, I find that it is a fit case where necessary direction is required. Accordingly, the Director General Assam Rifles is hereby directed to keep the promise that he has been made to the petitioner as mentioned in the Annexures discussed above and to remuster the petitioner with immediate effect and to grant his pay and allowances as per the post he is holding as Nursing Assistant. Whole exercise to be completed within 3 (three) months from today. 10. With these observations and directions, the instant writ petition is allowed and stands disposed of.