JUDGMENT

A. K. PARICHHA, J. : The petitioner after completing his Higher Secondary Education in Vocational Stream under West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education took admission in Siddhes¬war College of Pharmaceutical Science situated at Amarda Road in the district of Balasore to pursue his studies in Diploma in Pharmacy. He continued his study in that College appeared in the examination of Pharmacy Part-I, Part-II conducted by opp.party No.1, Orissa State Board of Pharmacy, Bhubaneswar (in short, “OSBP”) in June, 2002 and November, 2004 respectively and passed those examinations with 1st Class. He then received practical training according to Regulation 20 of the Education Regulations, 1991 for the Diploma Course in Pharmacy, (in short “the Regula¬tions, 1991”) and obtained contract form from head of the train¬ing institution. After successful completion of the training in Part-III he produced all his certificates to the examination authorities with a request to grant certificate of Diploma in Pharmacy as per Regulation 22. But opp.party No.1 instead of issuing the certificate of Pharmacy cancelled the D-Pharma Part-II result of the petitioner vide Notification No.371/OSBP/85/2004, dated 5.6.2004 (Annexure-13) and directed him to surrender his mark-sheet of that examination on the plea that the petitioner does not possess the minimum qualification for admission into D-Pharma course as prescribed in Regulation 5 of the Regulations, 1991. Aggrieved by such action of opp.party No.1, petitioner has filed the present writ application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the notification under Annexure-13 and direct the opp.party No.1 to issue the certificate of D-Pharma course in his favour and to allow him to register his name in the Register of the State Council, opposite party No.1 as a Pharmacist with due intimation to the Central Council, opp.party No.3 as per the provisions of Act and Rules.

2. Opposite party No.2 and 3 by separate counters refuted the plea of the petitioners claiming, inter alia that the peti¬tioner does not possess the minimum required qualification for admission into D-Pharma Course but in collusion with opposite party No.4 he got himself admitted in such course and pursued his studies. They claim that on discovery of the lack of eligibility of the petitioner, opp.party No.1 had no other alternative than to cancel the result of the petitioner. Opposite party No.4 did not file any counter.

3. Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel appearing for the peti¬tioner submitted that Higher Secondary Education in vocational stream is equivalent to +2 education all over the country and when the petitioner had passed such Higher Secondary Education in vocational stream with subjects including Physics, Chemistry, Bioscience, he had the requisite minimum qualification for admis¬sion into the Diploma in Pharmacy course prescribed under Regula¬tion 5 of the Regulations, 1991. Mr Satpathy also argued that after giving the petitioner admission into the Diploma in Pharma¬cy Course, allowing him to appear in Part-I and Part-II Examina¬tions after verifying his certificates and testimonials and to complete the training in Part-III of the Course, opp.party No.1 cannot now refuse to issue the Diploma Certificate to the peti¬tioner or to cancel the results of Part-I and Part-II Examina¬tions as the same would be against equity and principles of promissory estoppel. In support of his contentions he relied on several decisions of this Court and the apex Court.

4. Mr. M. S. Panda, learned counsel appearing for opp.party No.1 on the other hand, contended that Higher Secondary Course in Vocational Stream is never equivalent to +2 Science academic stream; and as such, the petitioner does not possess the required minimum qualification for admission into the Diploma Course in Pharmacy prescribed under Regulation 5 of the Regula¬tions, 1991.

5. Mr. J. K. Mishra, learned Senior Standing Counsel, (Central Govt.) an