Mandatory migration rules defeat prior consent and bar promissory estoppel where admission conditions were not satisfied.

Migration of students under the Punjab University Act, 1947 remained subject to mandatory statutory rules requiring, among other conditions, vacancy availability and a qualifying J.E.T. score. The Principal had no authority to grant consent contrary to those rules, so his earlier concurrence was ultra vires and could not bind the University or prevent a later objection before admission. Promissory estoppel was unavailable because it cannot override a mandatory legal provision or validate an illegality, especially where no change of position had occurred and the students had not yet been admitted to the transferee college.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Principal's earlier consent to migration precluded the University and its officers from objecting to admission later, and whether promissory estoppel could be invoked to enforce a transfer granted contrary to mandatory migration s.

Analysis: The migration of students was governed by statutory rules and regulations framed under the Punjab University Act, 1947, which required, among other things, availability of vacancy and a qualifying J.E.T. score. The Principal had no discretion to grant consent contrary to those rules. His earlier concurrence, being inconsistent with the governing law and therefore ultra vires, could not bind the authority or bar a later objection before actual admission. Promissory estoppel cannot be used to defeat a mandatory legal provision or to perpetuate an illegality, particularly where no change of position had occurred and the students had not yet been admitted to the transferee college.

Conclusion: The earlier consent did not preclude objection, and promissory estoppel was unavailable against the mandatory migration rules.

---