The State Government is estopped from denying admission to a candidate who was selected for admission to a course but was denied admission on the ground that he was not qualified for admission, where the State Government had not disclosed its decision that the course was meant for direct candidates only.

K. N. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, a Medical Graduate in the employment of the State as an Assistant Surgeon with effect from Apr. 1977, is before us asking for a direction to the opposite parties to admit him to the Resident House Staff course in General Medicine for the 1981-82 session. When the prospectus for the 198182 session was issued, the petitioner obtained an application form and the prospectus on 4-8-81 and applied to undertake the said course in General Medicine on the selfsame day. His application was duly considered and he was allowed to sit for the selection examination held on 21-8-1981. He was also duly selected for joining the aforesaid course as would be evident from the intimation received by him under Annexure 2. Under that document he was directed to report personally to the Principal on any date between 21-9-1981 and 25-9-1981 during the specified hours for taking admission, In terms of Annexure 2, the petitioner reported to opposite party No. 3, Principal of the college where he was to be admitted, on 21-9-1981 and filled up the memorandum to the effect that he was so reporting. Opposite party No. 3 instead of admitting the petitioner chose to issue a clarificatory letter under Annexure 5 to the Governor of the Post-Graduate Selection Committee, opposite party No. 2, where he stated :--

"i am to inform you that Dr. Biswa-nath Misra, Index No. 8r/71 (petitioner), an in-service Doctor now working as Asst. Bacteriologist and Pathologist to Government of Orissa, Cuttack, reported today for admission to R. H. S. in General Medicine. In this connection, instruction is requested if in-service Doctors can be admitted to the R. H. S, seats".

The petitioner thereupon came before this Court on 23-9-1981 apprehensive that if there was delay he may not be in a position to take admission. On 24-91981, a rule was issued and the Court passed an order saying that the petitioner would be adequately protected in case his application succeeded.

( 2 ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Secretary to Government in the Health and Family Welfare Department, where the basic facts are not disputed. In paras 3, 4 and 5 of the return it has been pleaded:-

"the total number of R. H. S. seats during 1981-82 is 112. The entire seats are meant for the direct candidates. There was no indication in the prospectus that in-service Medical Officers are eligible for admission. The petitioner being an in-service Medical Officer applied for admission to the R. H. S. course during 1981-82 and he was issued index card, admit card and also allowed to appear at the entrance examination basing on the information furnished by the petitioner in the application form, But when it was found out that the petitioner is an in-service Medical Officer, he was denied admission. But it is not a fact that the petitioner has been debarred of the opportunity to undergo Post-Graduate study. He is at liberty to seek for admission to 2-year Post-Graduate course after completion of 5 years of service. 4. In the previous year, P. G. seats were limited for the in-service Medical Officers. So, in order to give equal opportunity to the in-service Medical Officers, 113 seats out of 226 total seats were reserved for the in-service Medical Officers. Post-Graduate course is three years, out of which the first year is R. H. S. One year of R. H. S. is equal to five years of service under the State Government. So, opposite party No. 1 decided to allow in-service Medical Officer with five years of service under the State Government to go for P. G. Studies for two years. 5. The contention of the petitioner that he was selected for admission to R. H. S. course is true. But he was otherwise not eligible as he was an in-service candidate. Besides, this selection was subject to verification of records at the time of admission. On verification it was revealed that the petitioner is an in-service Medical Officer. So he was denied admission as R. H. S. seats are meant