ORDER : BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3 . The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: - “It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit the writ application and issue R ule N ISI calling upon the Opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned order vide Annexure-10, 12 and 14 shall not be quashed and if the Opposite parties failed to show cause or show insufficient cause issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ in quashing the orders vide Annexure-10, 12 and 14. And issue further order to the Opposite parties more specifically the Opposite party No. 5 to reinstate the petitioner in the service along with all consequential service benefits. And pass any other appropriate order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court m ay deem fit and proper.” 4. It is contended that by facing due recruitment process, petitioner was appointed as a Constable (G.D.) in the establishment of CISF, where he joined on 19.03.2001. It is contended that even though petitioner in his application contended that he belongs to SEBC category, his caste being “Khandayat” so available under Annexure-C/5, but petitioner on the face of such intimation, was provided with appointment as against OBC category. 4. 1. It is contended that while so continuing and on the ground that petitioner does not belong to OBC, a proceeding was initiated against him vide Memorandum dated 22.08.2020 under Annexure-1. Article of Charge framed in the said proceeding reads as follows:- “That, CISF No. 011220044, Const/GD Pradipta Samal of CISF Unit ASG Bhubaneswar while recruitment process in Central Industrial Security Force for the post of Constable/GD, claimed himself as OBC candidate for his personal gain and got appointment to the rank as OBC on 19/03/2001. On verification from the competent authority, it is found that the individual belongs to “KHANDAYAT” caste which is under SEBC category as per notification of Govt. of Odisha which does not come under OBC category as prescribed by Govt. of India. It shows that the individual got recruited in CISF fraudulently by misleading the department which tantamount to gross misconduct which is unbecoming of a member of a disciplined Force like CISF. Hence the charge.” 4. 2. of Odisha which does not come under OBC category as prescribed by Govt. of India. It shows that the individual got recruited in CISF fraudulently by misleading the department which tantamount to gross misconduct which is unbecoming of a member of a disciplined Force like CISF. Hence the charge.” 4. 2. It is contended that petitioner though filed his written statement of defence and participated in the enquiry, but without proper appreciation of the fact that petitioner was duly appointed as a Constable (G.D) in the year 2001 and that petitioner has not committed any fault to get the benefit of appointment, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 27.02.2021 under Annexure-10, passed the order of discharge. Such order of discharge passed under Annexure-10, was confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order under Annexure-12 and by the Revisional Authority vide order under Annexure-14. 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since petitioner at no point of time suppressed any material fact to get the benefit of appointment as an OBC candidate and in his application, he clearly disclosed that he belongs to SEBC category and produced the certificate accordingly so available under Annexure-C/5, after allowing him to continue for around 19 years, there was no necessity to initiate the proceeding with the charges vide Annexure-1. 4. 4. It is also contended that since petitioner without any fault of his own got the benefit of appointment and continued for around 19 years, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Bikash Mahalik Vrs. State of Odisha and Others , order of discharge passed under Annexure-10, so confirmed vide order under Annexure-12 and 14, are not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. 5. This Court taking into account the fact that no fault has been committed by the petitioner therein, interfered with similar nature of termination in the case of Bikash Mahalik . View expressed by this Court in Para-13 to 28 reads as follows:- “13. In Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Treas House Ltd. , (1956) 1 All ER 256, it has been held that a promise is intended to be binding, intended to be acted upon, and in fact acted upon is binding. 14. In Century Spg. And Mfg. Co. In Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Treas House Ltd. , (1956) 1 All ER 256, it has been held that a promise is intended to be binding, intended to be acted upon, and in fact acted upon is binding. 14. In Century Spg. And Mfg. Co. Ltd v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council , (1970) 1 SCC 582 , it has been held that there is no distinction between a private individual and a public body so far as the doctrine of promissory estoppel is concerned. 15. In Gujurat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotels , (1983) 3 SCC 379 , it has been held that the principle of “promissory estoppel” would estop a person from backing out of its obligation arising from a solemn promise made by it to the respondent. 16. In Ashok Kumar Maheswari v. State of U.P. /b>., 1988 SCC LSS 592, it has been held that doctrine of “promissory estoppel” has been evolved by the Courts on the principle of equity to avoid injustice. 17. In Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P. , AIR 2002 SC 322 : 2002) 2 SCC 188 , it has been held that the Government is equally bound by its promise like a private individual, save where the promise is prohibited by law, or devoid of authority or power of the officer making the promise. The equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel must yield where the equity so requires in the larger public interest. 18. In State of Rajasthan v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. /b>., (2004) 7 SCC 673 , it has been held that // 19 // the “promissory estoppel” operates on equity and public interest. 19. In A.P. Steel Re-rolling Mill Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2007) 2 SCC 725 , it has been held that where a beneficent scheme is made by the State, the doctrine of “promissory estoppel” would apply. 20. In State of Orissa v. Manglam Timber Products Ltd. /b>., (2003) 9 Scale 578 , it has been held that to attract applicability of promissory estoppel a contract in writing is not a necessary requirement. This principle is based on premise that no one can take advantage of its own omission or fault. 21. 20. In State of Orissa v. Manglam Timber Products Ltd. /b>., (2003) 9 Scale 578 , it has been held that to attract applicability of promissory estoppel a contract in writing is not a necessary requirement. This principle is based on premise that no one can take advantage of its own omission or fault. 21. In B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy , (2003) 2 SCC 355 (365) it has been held by the apex Court that ‘estoppel’ is based on the maxim “allegans contrarir non est audiendus” (a party is not to be heard contrary) and is the spicy of presumption “juries et de jure” (absolute, or conclusive or irrebuttable presumption). 22. In H.R. Basavaraj v. Canara Bank , (2010) 12 SCC 458 , it has been clarified that in general words, ‘estopeel’ is a principle applicable when one person induces another or intentionally causes the other person to believe something to be true and to act upon such belief as to change his/her position. In such a case, the former shall be stopped from going back on the word given. The principle of estoppels is only applicable in cases where the other party has changed his positions relying upon the representation thereby made. 23. The principle of promissory estoppels has been considered by the apex Court in Union of India v. M/s Anglo, Afghan Agencies etc. /b>., AIR1968 SC 718; Chowgule & Company (Hind) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India , AIR 1971 SC 2021 ; M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh , AIR 1979 SC 621 ; Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. /b>., AIR 1986 SC 806 ; Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India , AIR 1987SC 2414; and Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana , AIR 1988 SC 2181 and many other subsequent decisions also. 24. In Ambika Prasad Mohanty v. Orissa Engineering College , 1989(1) OLR 440 , the Division Bench of this Court has already held that a student admitted after satisfying all qualifications, subsequently his admission is cancelled and he cannot prosecute his studies elsewhere, rule of estoppel is applicable. 25. This Court in Dr. 24. In Ambika Prasad Mohanty v. Orissa Engineering College , 1989(1) OLR 440 , the Division Bench of this Court has already held that a student admitted after satisfying all qualifications, subsequently his admission is cancelled and he cannot prosecute his studies elsewhere, rule of estoppel is applicable. 25. This Court in Dr. (Smt.) Pranaya Ballari Mohanty v. Utkal University , 2014 (I) OLR 226 has come to a finding that the action taken at belated stage by the University after lapse of 20 years of publication of the result is hit by the principle of estoppel. 26. Similar view has also been taken by this Court in Rajanikanta Priyadarshy v. Utkal University represented through its Registrar, 2015 (I) OLR 212 , wherein this Court held that the result of +3 Final Degree (Regular) Examination, 2010 of the petitioner therein having been published and on that basis he has already undergone higher studies and passed in different courses, subsequently his initial result cannot be cancelled on the ground that he has failed in the said examination. 27. In Pratima Sahoo (supra), this Court held that the order of disengagement of the petitioner from the post of Sikhya Sahayak, pursuant to decision of the district administration, having found qualified in the selection process and appointed after resigning from her erstwhile post of Anganwadi Worker and having worked for six to eight months, amounts to putting the petitioner in prejudical and disadvantageous position and the reason assigned for later finding the petitioner not suitable for securing less marks than other meritorious candidates do holds good, the petitioner cannot be found faulted by the mistake committed by the appointing authority in calculating the percentage. Consequentially, direction was given to absorb the petitioner forthwith applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the said case. 28. In view of the law and fact, as discussed above, the irresistible conclusion is that the show-cause notice dated 31.03.2015 under Annexure-13 issued by opposite party no.3, the letter dated 09.02.2015 under Annexure-13/1 issued by opposite party no.2 to opposite party no.1 and letter dated 26.03.2015 under Annexure-13/2 issued by the Government of Odisha, Revenue and Disaster Management Department to opposite party no.2 cannot sustain. Therefore, the same are liable to be quashed and hereby quashed. Therefore, the same are liable to be quashed and hereby quashed. Pursuant to interim order passed on 07.04.2019 by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal since the petitioner is still continuing, he shall be allowed to continue with all service and financial benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law.” 5. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI appearing along with Mr. S. Panda, learned CGC on the other hand made their submission contending inter alia that since petitioner does not belong to OBC and in the advertisement only OBC candidates were eligible to get the benefit of appointment, because of the wrong committed by the authority in providing appointment to the petitioner, even though he does not belong to OBC, no fault can be found with the action of the authorities in initiating the proceeding under Annexure-1 with passing of order of discharge under Annexure-10, so confirmed vide order under Annexure-12 and 14. 5. 1. It is also contended that petitioner having been treated as an OBC candidate, he was extended with the benefit of age relaxation which he was not otherwise entitled to get. It is also contended that even though National Commission for Backward Classes, Odisha Bench made a request for inclusion of “Khandayat” caste in the Central List of OBC, but the same has not yet been acted upon. Request made by the Commission reads as follows:- “ The case arises from the request received in this Commission from State Government of Orissa for inclusion of castes/communities Odia/Odia Khandayat caste in the Central List of Backward Classes for Orissa.” 5. 2. It is accordingly contended that since the very appointment of the petitioner is on a wrong notion and admittedly petitioner does not belong to OBC and he got the benefit of appointment as an OBC candidate, the proceeding was not only initiated but by following due procedure of law and by following principle of natural justice, petitioner has been duly discharged vide order under Annexure-10. Such order of discharge has also been confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Revisional Authority vide orders under Annexure-12 and 14. 5. 3. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the order of discharge issued under Annexure-10, confirmed vide order under Annexure-12 and 14. 6. Such order of discharge has also been confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Revisional Authority vide orders under Annexure-12 and 14. 5. 3. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the order of discharge issued under Annexure-10, confirmed vide order under Annexure-12 and 14. 6. To the submission made by learned DSGI, learned counsel for the petitioner made further submission contending inter alia that Govt. in the General Administration Department vide Notification dated 27.10.1989, while framing the Rule namely Orissa Civil Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989 under Rule-1(c), held that “Socially and Educationally Backward Class” means the Backward Class Citizen, other than the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. While holding so, 3 (three) years of age relaxation was extended in favour of SEBC candidates. 6. 1. It is also contended that Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions vide office Memorandum dated 13.08.1990, held that 27% of vacancy in Civil Post and services in the Govt. of India is reserved for SEBC candidates. Similar provision was also made in the office Memorandum issued by the Govt. in the department of Personnel & Training vide Memorandum dated 25.09.1991. 6. 2. Making all these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of discharge needs interference of this Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner by facing due recruitment process, was appointed as a Constable (G.D.), where he joined on 19.03.2001. It is not disputed that petitioner though belongs to SEBC category candidate, but by treating him to be an OBC candidate, petitioner was provided with appointment, when he joined on 19.03.2001. 7. 1. It is found that while continuing as such, the proceeding in question was initiated only vide Memorandum dated 22.08.2020 under Annexure-1, on the ground that petitioner since does not belong to OBC category, he cannot be extended with the benefit of appointment. 7. 2. As found, in the said proceeding petitioner was imposed with the punishment vide order dated 27.02.2021 under Annexure-10 by the Disciplinary Authority and vide the said order, petitioner was discharged from his services. 7. 2. As found, in the said proceeding petitioner was imposed with the punishment vide order dated 27.02.2021 under Annexure-10 by the Disciplinary Authority and vide the said order, petitioner was discharged from his services. Order of punishment so passed by the Disciplinary Authority under Annexure- 10 has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order under Annexure-12 and the Revisional Authority vide order under Annexure-14. 7. 3. This Court finds that petitioner has never provided any wrong information to get the benefit of appointment pursuant to the selection process initiated by the authorities concerned. 7. 4. Even though petitioner in support of his caste, produced the SEBC certificate so available under Annexure-C/5, but by taking the petitioner as having belong to OBC, petitioner was provided with the appointment, where he joined on 19.03.2001. It is also found that the National Commission of Backward Classes, Orissa Bench wayback in 2007 has requested for inclusion of caste ‘Khandayat’ to which petitioner belongs in the Central List of OBC. 7. 5. It is also found that in the office memorandum produced in Court, Govt. of India has made reservation to the extent of 27% to be filled up from amongst eligible SEBC candidates by extending the benefit of age relaxation up to 3 (three) years. 7. 6. In view of the aforesaid analysis and placing reliance on the decision in the case of Bikash Mahalik so cited (supra) and the fact that petitioner without any fault of his own was not only appointed but also continued for more than 19 years, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which order of discharge was passed under Annexure-10, confirmed vide order under Annexure-12 and 14, are not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. 7. Therefore, this Court while quashing the orders issued under Annexure-10, 12 and 14, directs Opp. Party No.5 to pass an order of reinstatement by reinstating the petitioner in his services within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Break period of service be regularized in accordance with law, but on notional basis. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.