JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. Tapasya Bajpai, Advocate holding brief of Shri Amarendra Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav Warsi, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs : "(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite respondents to allow the petitioners to work and discharge their duties as Kanistha Pravakta (Gayan) in classical vocal without any interference. (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to issue to the petitioners formal order of confirmation in service irrespective of the artificial break caused on account of deliberate act of opposite parties no.3 and 4 in not allowing such to happen. (c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to provide parity in employment to the petitioners with all other employed in dozens, duly absorbed in regular pay-scale from their past status of being employed against fixed salary only. (d) issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem, fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners. (e) allow the writ petition of the petitioners with costs." 3. Facts of the case are that the Bhatkhande Music Institute has come into existence with such name and profile ever since 24th October, 2000 when the same has been recognized and conferred with the status of deemed University by the Ministry of Human Resources, New Delhi. However, the existence of the institution needs to be discussed as the background shall enlighten the glorious history and the contribution of the institution to the field of music culture. 4. The present institution came into existence since 1926 when Sri Umanath Bali as ruler of Dariabad estate in Barabanki gifted certain buildings in Qaiserbagh at Lucknow owned by him, then onwards for the purpose of running an institution for imparting education in classical music with diversities as vocal, dance and instruments. Initially it was known as Marris Music College. This institute as it existed was taken over by the cultural department of the State Government of the State Government w.e.f. 26.3.1966 and was conferred a status of a Government Institution with its name as 'Bhatkhande Hindustani Sangeet Mahavidyalaya'. 5. Initially it was known as Marris Music College. This institute as it existed was taken over by the cultural department of the State Government of the State Government w.e.f. 26.3.1966 and was conferred a status of a Government Institution with its name as 'Bhatkhande Hindustani Sangeet Mahavidyalaya'. 5. This status and concept continued till 24.10.2000, since when on the request of the State Government, the institution was accredited with the status of deemed University by the University Grants Commission duly notified by the Government of India. Thereafter it is known as Bhatkhande Music Institute (Deemed University). However the financial control of the institution vested on the grants and aid in its entirety by the cultural department of the State Government. As such the opposite parties are amenable to writ jurisdiction of Hon’ble Court of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 6. The petitioners in 1997 were engaged as Prashikshak (Gayan) by the Principal of the then 'Bhatkhande Hindustani Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, Lucknow'. The petitioner no.1 was engaged for the Agra Unit of the Mahavidyalaya which was fully financed and controlled by the Head Office at Luckow and which unit was established in the year 1997 itself at Agra. The petitioner no.1 was appointed vide order dated 13.9.1997 by the then Principal of the Institution at Lucknow. In the same manner, for yet another Unit which was simultaneously opened at Ghaziabad in the year 1997. The petitioner no.2 was appointed on the post of Prashikshak (Gayan) for the Ghaziabad (Noida) Unit by the then Principal on 13.10.1997. 7. The Units which were established by the Bhatkhande Hindustani Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, Lucknow for Agra and Ghaziabad respectively had three instructors/ Prashikshaks each, one for the classical vocal, second for classical instrument (Tabla) and the third as Prashikshak for classical dance (kathak). Accordingly the petitioner no.1 uninterruptedly continued as Prashikshak (Gayan) at the Agra Unit and the petitioner no.2 continued as such with the Ghaziabad Unit. The terms and condontions were made flexible by the Principal in office, as and when periodical engagement orders were issued after creating artificial breaks. 8. Likewise, engagement orders were issued for both the units time and again. These orders were issued under the seal and signature of the Principal of the Mahavidyalaya whosoever held that post at the relevant time. The terms and condontions were made flexible by the Principal in office, as and when periodical engagement orders were issued after creating artificial breaks. 8. Likewise, engagement orders were issued for both the units time and again. These orders were issued under the seal and signature of the Principal of the Mahavidyalaya whosoever held that post at the relevant time. As such, these two units continued for a period of almost three years, when in December, 2000 the Governing Body of the institution decided to close down these two units of Agra and Ghaziabad and consequently the entire staff from both the Units were asked to join at Lucknow, in case they wished to continue with the service conditions, available to them when they were posted at their respective Units. Here, it is also relevant to clarify that in both the Units besides three Prashikshaks each, there were three Accompanists for each unit and officials to look after the administrative works and peons to discharge their work of usual nature at both the units. Ass the incumbents were engaged on fixed salary basis and for definite tenures. 9. As indicated in the forgoing paragraphs, it is submitted that the Bhatkhande Hindustani Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, Lucknow transformed into Bhatkhande Sangeet Sansthan Samvishwavidyalaya (Bhatkhande Music Institute/ Deemed University, Lucknow) since 24.10.2000. With such transformation the entire staff of the University (Deemed University) was classified into three sets:- (i) Academic staff for the University wing to discharge teaching with designations and posts of Professor, Reader and Lecturers respectively. Their service conditions were guided by the rules/ Bye-laws of 2002 governing the terms and conditions of services of University Wing. (ii) The major strength of employees belongs to the non-teaching and technical cadre, which constituted the administrative staff with its Chief as Administrative Officer, the staff of the library, hostels, the personal staff of the faculty members and the personnel belonging to the accounts cadre. The services of such incumbents are governed and controlled by 'Bhatkhande Sangeet Sansthan Gairshaikshik Evam Technical Cadre Service Regulations, 2002'. (iii) That the third rank of the staff constituted of those who imparted education to the students in the diploma stream. This cadre constituted of Kanistha Pravaktas and Sangatkartas respectively. It is classified that kanistha Pravaktas in the past were also known and referred to as Prashikshaks/ Demonstrators/ Instructors. (iii) That the third rank of the staff constituted of those who imparted education to the students in the diploma stream. This cadre constituted of Kanistha Pravaktas and Sangatkartas respectively. It is classified that kanistha Pravaktas in the past were also known and referred to as Prashikshaks/ Demonstrators/ Instructors. The service conditions of these incumbents were governed by the bye-laws known as 'Bhatkhande Sangeet Sansthan Adhinasth Shaikshik Seva Upvidhian 2002'. 10. The petitioners since March, 2001 started working in the capacity of Prashikshak/ Kanistha Pravakta in the deemed University for imparting teaching to the diploma class students in classical vocal stream constituting of Thumari, Khyal etc. The petitioners though were engaged on petty remuneration by way of fixed salary were although burdened extra ordinarily with the teaching work. As the students proporation in degree classes with respective to diploma stream is almost 1:8. 11. The entire staff from both the Units of Agra and Ghaziabad which comprised of Prashikshak/ Kanistha Pravakta, Sangatkarta/ Accompanish, office/ administrative staff and peons were all absorbed/ regularized by the University administration and all such incumbents though initially engaged on identical terms and conditions of services viz. fix salary and definite period of services extended from time to time were ultimately made part of the regular staff stream of the University. The exception being these two petitioners, who were rigorously made to work and ultimately were left out for personal reasons known to opposite parties no.3 and 4. 12. A benevolent exercise was adopted once by the University when these two petitioners too were offered appointment against substantive and regular vacancies of 'Kanistha Pravakta (Group-C)' in the pay scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/-. Such engagement was made available to the petitioners on the recommendation of the Department Selection Committee held for the purpose. Finally the order that is the appointment order was issued by the then opposite party no.2 on 6.5.2008, appointing both the petitioners in the place and position, as they are as petitioner before this Hon’ble Court. The order of appointment besides specifying certain usual conditions/ requirements, provided for one year probation period. The petitioners who were already on the rolls of University since last eleven years had no other option but to accept the appointment order dated 6.5.2008 with the conditions detailed therein. 13. The order of appointment besides specifying certain usual conditions/ requirements, provided for one year probation period. The petitioners who were already on the rolls of University since last eleven years had no other option but to accept the appointment order dated 6.5.2008 with the conditions detailed therein. 13. The petitioners in pursuance to the appointment order dated 6.5.2008 joined their posts on 8.5.2008 and started working by imparting education to the students in diploma stream of classical vocal. Their work and conduct was above board as was in the past period of more than a decade. 14. The period of probation in terms of the order dated 6.5.2008 passed away without any adversities or any deficiency on the part of the petitioners in carrying out the assignment as required in terms of the order of appointment. With such devotion and hard work, the petitioners completed their period of probation on 8.5.2009. The petitioners were regularly paid the remuneration in the pay scale along with the other incumbents on regular rolls of the University. 15. Immediately after the completion of the period of probation in May, 2009 the University ought to have issued the order of confirmation of the petitioners against their posts in terms of the provisions contained in Part 6 of the 'Bhatkhande Sangeet Sansthan Adhinastha Sewa Upvidhian 2002'. But to the contrary the opposite party no.3 by verbal orders restricted the petitioners from reporting on duties thereafter, without assigning any reasons whatsoever nor approved with any show cause as to why such drastic action followed without any adverse/ substantial cause 16. The petitioners though were issued with the appointment order dated 6.5.2008 with the specific clause of one year of probation. However from the perusal of the appointment order based on the recommendation of Department Promotion Committee the order of appointment appears to have been issued in lieu of the order of regularization/ absorption as the past undergone period of services of almost ten years were taken into consideration for issuing the order dated 6.5.2008. 17. The assertion by the petitioners in the foregoing paragraph also finds support of the applicable bye-law/ Regulation 2002 which provides for the educational qualification and age requirement under Regulations 8 and 9 respectively, which were well within the knowledge of the authorities before issuing the order dated 6.5.2008. 18. 17. The assertion by the petitioners in the foregoing paragraph also finds support of the applicable bye-law/ Regulation 2002 which provides for the educational qualification and age requirement under Regulations 8 and 9 respectively, which were well within the knowledge of the authorities before issuing the order dated 6.5.2008. 18. In the field of act, culture and other diversities of like nature, the standard of educational qualification are not always strictly adhered to for this very reason most of existing faculty members are hardly High School or Intermediate on the academic side, though they may have professional diplomas/ certificate and certificates of leaving from their Gurus/ Gharanas, which are the basic identity and symbols for an artist to get recognition and acceptance in the field of song, dance or music. 19. The petitioners are fortunately much more qualified academically to the majority of other faculty members teaching in the diploma stream of the University. The petitioner no.1 academically is M.A. from the University of Lucknow and professionally he has obtained Sangeet Visharad and Sangeet Nipun with first position. Thereafter, he has obtained Sangeet Prabhakar from Prayag Sangeet Samiti, Allahabad and Post Graduate degree in music from Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidyalaya, Khairagarh, Madhya Pradesh now in Chhattisgarh by securing second position in All India Merit. Further besides many stage performances and elite experiences the petitioner no.1 happens to be proud disciple of Professor Dr. S.S. Awasthi, D. Lit., a class vocalist of his times, who also held the office of Principal for almost 20 years of the institution. The petitioner no.2 academically a double graduate from the University of Lucknow and professionally he too possess Sangeet Visharad and Sangeet Nipun from 'Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidyapeeth' itself and thereafter he too a Post Graduate degree holder in music from Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidyalaya, Khairagarh in Madhya Pradesh now in Chhattisgarh. Further he too besides having stage performances and elite experiences. The petitioner no.2 happens to be disciple of Professor Ganesh Prasad Mishra, Ex-Principal Bhatkhande Music College, Lucknow. 20. The Bhatkhande Sangeet Sansthan Adhinasth Shaikshik Sewa Upvidhiyan-2002, though is in existence since the year of its being framed under Section 26 read with Section 5(a) of the Rules of the University. These Regulations have failed to incorporate the provisions with respect to absorption of incumbents working with the Sansthan/ University from before the coming up of these rules. 20. The Bhatkhande Sangeet Sansthan Adhinasth Shaikshik Sewa Upvidhiyan-2002, though is in existence since the year of its being framed under Section 26 read with Section 5(a) of the Rules of the University. These Regulations have failed to incorporate the provisions with respect to absorption of incumbents working with the Sansthan/ University from before the coming up of these rules. As such exceptionally the Departmental Selection Committee formulated the device to absorb these two incumbents against the vacant and substantive post of Kanistha Pravaktas by giving them the benefit of their past services, as was given to all theother Sangatkartas and officials on the administrative side and peons working with the Agra and Ghaziabad Units, which Units were abandoned for undisclosed reasons, and certainly on account of no fault of the working staff of those Units including the petitioners. 21. The petitioners are advised to state on the touchstone of the Rules/ Bye-laws of 2002 the case of the petitioners is not justified to be examined as the post of Kanistha Pravakta in the existing circumstances is cent-percent promotional post, available for being filled up from the subordinate rank holders called sangatkartas. 22. The petitioners are further advised to state that the petitioners have been grossly discriminated by the opposite party no.1 and 2 to the extent that all fellow members of the closed down Units of Agra and Ghaziabad were absorbed in the Head Quarters in regular pay scale by the opposite parties no.1 and 2 against the assignments on which they were either working or discharging their duties in those units in their respective capacities. 23. The opposite parties as are required to report periodically to the State Government have also sent a report in the year 2009 itself. This report dated 17.8.2009 carries certain features and details about the existence and performance of the petitioners. The sacred issues being discrimination with others, who were appointed on the strength of the past services. Further the appointment/ absorption of the petitioners were made against clear and substantive vacancies and that the Departmental Selection Committee had processed the appointment. 24. The opposite party no.4 from Bombay is an appointee of the period when Dr. Vidya Dhar Vyas from Bombay University was appointed as Vice Chancellor of the University in the year 2004. The opposite party no.4 was then given favour on account of regionalism. After unceremonious departure of Dr. 24. The opposite party no.4 from Bombay is an appointee of the period when Dr. Vidya Dhar Vyas from Bombay University was appointed as Vice Chancellor of the University in the year 2004. The opposite party no.4 was then given favour on account of regionalism. After unceremonious departure of Dr. Vyas, Professor Narendra Nath Dhar, senior most faculty of the University was appointed as Vice Chancellor by the orders of the Chancellor/ His Excellency the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners were issued with the absorption/ appointment order dated 6.5.2008 during that term. However, a full time Vice Chancellor was subsequently appointed by way of opposite party no.3 in March, 2009. The opposite party no.4 was excited to get yet another Vice Chancellor from his home State Maharashtra as opposite party no.3. The earlier clout reassembled to shape the present controversy, whereby the petitioners have been disengaged without any order in writing. This exercise has been done as per version of opposite party no.4 is to accommodate few others in waiting from their home State of the present institution. 25. The opposite parties no.2 to 4 time and again are dribbling with the existing posts in the classical vocal side by getting particular posts identified in the subject with particular sub-streams viz. Khyal, Thumri, Dhrupad. It is here to be clarified that all these terms together constitute classical vocal. There is no distinct dividing line in between. Moreover the existing faculty irrespective of confirmed employees or that of fixed salary are made to conduct classes in either of these sub-streams or all. 26. Since two vice Chancellors, the then Dr. Vidya Dhar Vyas and presently the opposite party no.3 had not left any stone unturned to spoil the basic character of this music institute/ Vishwavidyalaya. The style of working is such that it had even lead to unrest, mass demonstration and even strike from work for a period of almost three months. Always the employees are at the receiving end. On several occasion the impasse ended with some formal agreement and at times even without that, such all was unprecedented for the institute. One such agreement was executed on 17.7.2009, wherein at item no.5, the fate of the petitioners were discussed. In such declaration the opposite party no.3 had daringly proposed to repeat exercise already undergone vide order dated 6.5.2008. On several occasion the impasse ended with some formal agreement and at times even without that, such all was unprecedented for the institute. One such agreement was executed on 17.7.2009, wherein at item no.5, the fate of the petitioners were discussed. In such declaration the opposite party no.3 had daringly proposed to repeat exercise already undergone vide order dated 6.5.2008. The criteria too being, the same of giving weightage to the past undergone services of the petitioner. 27. The petitioners are being subjected to open discrimination at the hands of opposite parties no.3 and 4 as the parameters already settled by the then Vice Chancellor vide order dated 6.5.2008 is initially being rejected by the opposite party no.3 but as per the issue no.5 of the settlement dated 17.7.2009 the opposite party no.3 herself has agreed to follow the footmarks of her predecessors knowingfully well that the provisions in existing and previous rules are silent on this issue. 28. The petitioners had represented to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 time and again, but of no avail. 29. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the action of the respondents in-discriminating the petitioners with others is arbitrary, discriminatory and against the settled norms. He next submitted that the respondent nos.2 and 3 have acted maliciously by restraining the petitioners from attending the duties after completion of the probation without any formal order in writing. 30. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the petitioners had uninterruptedly worked for period of more than 12 years which weightage became the cause of absorption/ appointment, so that the petitioners status from that fixed salary employee be transformed into regular salary employee. 31. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that all other incumbents engaged on fixed salary basis in the then Agra and Ghaziabad Units of the respondent no.1 whosoever stayed back to serve the institution was absorbed irrespective of their status and post. 32. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the career of the petitioners in the institution has throughout been excellent which cause has allowed their continuance and ultimately the order of absorption by way of order of appointment. 33. 32. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the career of the petitioners in the institution has throughout been excellent which cause has allowed their continuance and ultimately the order of absorption by way of order of appointment. 33. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the principle of promissory estoppel applies to the impugned action of the respondent nos.1 and 2 since the petitioners were appointed only on the strength of their work and devotion to the cause of teaching in classical vocal. 34. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the petitioners are academically having high qualification besides having such high qualification in their field of high skill of classical vocal. The petitioners stand confirmed in absence of non-issuance of any formal order with respect to extension of the period of probation. The petitioners have been continuously working and in due course appointed against vacant and substantive posts of Kanistha Pravaktas to teach in the diploma stream of the institution. 35. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the sole hidden cause for discontinuance of the petitioners is ill-will of respondent nos.3 and 4 who have their favorites in waiting in search of employment and for whom the posts are being forcibly got vacated. 36. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that respondent no.3 on one hand is forcibly not allowing the petitioners to discharge their duties, however, on the other hand while endorsing the outstanding undergone engagement of 12 years in employment with the respondent nos.1 and 2 as mentioned in agreement dated 17.7.2009 now is to be considered as a cause for considering them for appointment in situation of these very posts to be advertised in future. 37. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the conversion of the posts within classical vocal either from Khyal to Gayan or vis-a-versa is an eye wash and attempt to superficially dislodge the petitioners of their rightful claim against the posts based on their past experience. 38. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the authorities of the institution fully conscious about the fact that there was no provision under the Bye-laws/ Regulations, 2002 for the benefit of the petitioners, as such on equitable basis the privilege of absorption was extended by way of appointment to the petitioner in consonance with all other similarly situated and absorbed in due course by the institution. 39. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that in the field of art, performance and sports, strict parameters cannot be enforced to allow/ disallow an incumbent for his engagement and that too for those, whose credentials have been tested for more than a decade which period even if taken by way of probation is beyond the period prescribed by any exisiting Rules anywhere. 40. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the report of the Administrative Officer of the University dated 17.8.2009 speaks volume about the actual scenario and the drastic step of the respondent nos.3 and 4. 41. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the respondent nos.2 and 3 have issued an advertisement on 18.5.2016 to advertise both the post of Kanishtha Pravakta (Gayan/ Vocal), against which the petitioners were appointed by the order dated 6.5.2008 by the competent authority against the sanctioned post and any attempt of the respondents to make selection/ appointment against that post attempt is likely to jeopardize the merit of the present case. 42. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the petitioners have been disengaged without any order in writing also stands affirmed as there is no contravention to this fact from the respondents and therefore, on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 43. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners are not in the service of respondent no.1 after the expiry of their probation period and there was no clause in the appointment letter of the petitioners whereby there was any renewal/ confirmation automatically of the service of the petitioner after the expiry of their probation period. 44. Learned counsel for the respondents next submitted that the petitioners were appointed on a contractual basis for specific periods. He next submitted that after the Mahavidyalaya transformed into a University, the norms of the University Grants Commission were applicable and not otherwise. 45. Learned counsel for the respondents next submitted that the petitioners were paid according to the salary fixed by the University and agreed by the petitioners and at no point of time were they "burdened extraordinarily with the teaching work" or "rigorously made to work and ultimately were left out for personal reasons known to respondent nos.3 and 4". 45. Learned counsel for the respondents next submitted that the petitioners were paid according to the salary fixed by the University and agreed by the petitioners and at no point of time were they "burdened extraordinarily with the teaching work" or "rigorously made to work and ultimately were left out for personal reasons known to respondent nos.3 and 4". He next submitted that the parity claimed by the petitioners with others is not applicable to their cases as they were the teaching staff while the others were the non-teaching staff. 46. Learned counsel for the respondents next submitted the said appointment of the petitioners was not in accordance with law as the said vacancies had not been advertised by the then Vice Chancellor viz. Shri Narendra Nath Dhar who presently is facing disciplinary proceedings inter alia with respect to the said illegal appointment of the petitioners. He next submitted that the said appointment was not approved by the Board of Management. The non-teaching staff which was appointed by the respondent no.1 had been approved by the said Board of Management. 47. They next submitted that the posts of the petitioners were not promotional and hence the departmental promotion committee was not applicable to them. The norms of the University Grants Commission were applicable to the petitioners. 48. They next submitted that no discrimination at any point of time whatsoever had been meted out against the petitioners. They next submitted that the attending circumstances only go to show that the petitioners had actually been patronized by the then Vice Chancellor viz. Shri Narendra Nath Dhar and an irrefutable evidence to the issue is the appointment of the petitioners without advertising the vacancies and in direct contravention to a catena of decision of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 49. They next submitted that the very report mentions the fact that the posts on which the petitioners had been appointed had not been advertised at any point of time whatsoever. In view of the above, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are tenable in law and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the following judgments : "(i) Union of India and others v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. and other connected matters reported in AIR 1986 SC 806 (1). In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the following judgments : "(i) Union of India and others v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. and other connected matters reported in AIR 1986 SC 806 (1). (ii) Ayodhya Prasad Singh v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Orissa and others reported in AIR 1970 Orissa 201 (V.57 C66)" 50. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 51. On perusal of the material on record, it is evident that petitioner no.1 was initially engaged at the newly created Agra Unit of the Mahavidyalaya on 13.9.1997 whereas petitioner no.2 was initially engaged at the second newly created Ghaziabad Unit of Mahavidyalaya. On 29.9.1998, the periodical engagement against fixed salary was made. In the year 2001, Agra and Ghazibad Units were closed as per the policy of the State Government and the employees working there were brought to the headquarters at Lucknow. It is also evident that on 6.5.2008, the petitioners were appointed/ absorbed compositely by a single order passed by respondent no.2. 52. It is admitted case between the parties that the petitioners successfully completed their period of probation on 8.5.2009 and were regularly paid remuneration in the pay-scale. In the appointment letter, there is specific clause of one year of probation. After completion of the probation period, the posts on which the petitioners were working have not been confirmed by the University. The probation period of the petitioners was extended from time to time. 53. Perusal of Annexure 14 to the writ petition reveals that the Board of Management of respondent no.1 had converted the post of Gayan (Thumri) to Gayan (Khayal) and sent a proposal for the approval of the same to the State Government but till date neither any action has been taken, result of which the said posts could not be advertised by the respondent no.1. 54. To resolve the controversy involved in the present case, operative portions of the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent as under : (i) Union of India and others v. Godfrey India Ltd. (supra): "4. We do not find a similar provision, as contained in the proviso to Rule 6(3) referred to above, in the order of the petitioner’s appointment. We do not find a similar provision, as contained in the proviso to Rule 6(3) referred to above, in the order of the petitioner’s appointment. As a matter of fact, the terms of service of the petitioner contain no comparable provision and there is no scope for Mr. Mohanty to contend, and for us to hold, that 6 years’ period referred to in the order of appointment was such a limit, whereafter the status of the petitioner automatically underwent modification and he became confirmed and acquired a right to the post. We are satisfied that as long as by a specific order of the competent authority the petitioner was not confirmed in his service, the normal rule as applicable to probationers in Government service applied and the petitioner continued as a probation. In another part of the selfsame judgment, their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated the normal rule applicable to the case of a Government servant thus:- "This Court has consistently held that when a first appointment or promotion is made on probation for a specific period and the employee is allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of the period without any specific order of confirmation, he should be deemed to continue in his post as a probationer only, in the absence of any indication to the contrary in the original order of appointment or promotion or the service rules. In such a case, an express order of confirmation is necessary to give the employee a substantive right to the post, and from the mere fact that he is allowed to continue in the pot after the expiry of the specific period of probation it is not possible to hold that he should be deemed to have been confirmed….. The reason for this conclusion is that where on the completion of the specified period of probation the employee is allowed to continue in the post without an order of confirmation, the only possible view to take in the absence of anything to the contrary in the original order of appointment or promotion or the services rules, is that the initial period of probation has been extended by necessary implication." (ii) Ayodhya Prasad Singh: "9. Now the doctrine of promissory estoppel is well-established in the administrative law of India. Now the doctrine of promissory estoppel is well-established in the administrative law of India. It represents a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice and, though commonly named promissory estoppel, it is neither in the realm of contract nor in the realm of estoppel. The basis of this doctrine is the interposition of equity which has always, true to its form, stepped in to mitigate the rigour of strict law. This doctrine, though of ancient vintage, was rescued from obscurity by the decision of Mr. Justice Denning as he then was, in his celebrated judgment in Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. (1956) 1 All ER 256. The true principle of promissory estoppel is that where one party has by his word or conduct made to the other a clear that unequivocal promise or representation which is intended to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon y 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. It has often been said in England that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot itself be the basis of an action: it can only be a shield and not a sword: but the law in India has gone far ahead of the narrow position adopted in England and as a result of the decision of this Court in Motilal Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979) 2 SCR 641 : ( AIR 1979 SC 621 ), it is now well-settled that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not limited in its application only to defence but it can also found a cause of action. The decision of this Court in Motilal Sugar Mills case (supra) contains an exhaustive discussion of the doctrine of promissory estoppel and we find ourselves wholly in agreement with the various parameters of this doctrine outlined in that decision." 55. The decision of this Court in Motilal Sugar Mills case (supra) contains an exhaustive discussion of the doctrine of promissory estoppel and we find ourselves wholly in agreement with the various parameters of this doctrine outlined in that decision." 55. On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that when a first appointment or promotion is made on probation for a specific period and the employee is allowed to continue in the post after expiry of the period without any specific order of confirmation he should be deemed to continue in his post as a probationer only in the absence of any indication to the contrary in the original order of appointment or promotion or the service Rules. In absence of any express order of confirmation it cannot be held that he should be deemed to have been confirmed. It is further clear that where on the completion of the specified period of probation the employee is allowed to continue in the post without an order of confirmation, the only possible view to take in the absence of anything to the contrary in the original order of appointment or promotion or the services rules, is that the initial period of probation has been extended by the necessary implication. The true principle of promissory estoppel is that where one party has by his word or conduct made to the other a clear that unequivocal promise or representation which is intended to create legal relations 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 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. In view of the fact that the petitioners have never been confirmed on the said posts and only probation period of the petitioners have been extended from time to time, the ratio of judgments relied upon learned counsel for the respondents are squarely covered. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 56. In view of the fact that the petitioners have never been confirmed on the said posts and only probation period of the petitioners have been extended from time to time, the ratio of judgments relied upon learned counsel for the respondents are squarely covered. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 56. It is pertinent to mention here that where in the service rules or the letter of appointment a period of probation is specified and power to extend the same is also conferred upon the authority without prescribing any maximum period of probation and if the officer is continued beyond the prescribed or extended period, he cannot be deemed to be confirmed. In such cases there is no bar against termination at any point of time after expiry of the period of probation. It also cannot be said that merely because a maximum period of probation has been provided in Service Rules, continuance of the probationer thereafter would ipso facto must be held to be a deemed confirmation. 57. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. 58. Considering the fact that the Board of Management of respondent no.1 had converted the post of Gayan (Thumri) to Gayan (Khayal) and sent a proposal for approval, as also the fact that the probation of the petitioners was extended for more than a decade, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation along with all the necessary documents in support of their claim for confirmation to the respondents as well as extension of probation period within fifteen days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and in case such a representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the respondents shall consider claim of the petitioners and decide the same by passing an appropriate, reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter.