Estoppel and acquiescence

Petitioner had applied against the posts in question and his name was included in the short listed candidates, thereafter he had participated in the selection process actively but had failed to secure appointment

Petitioner, as per department, had also tendered fake certificate of his experience

While exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction, the conduct of the petitioner was also to be filtered through the lens of bona fide, which was to be judged by the court in the light of his conduct and overall circumstances of the case

Doctrine of acquiescence and estoppel were fully attracted in the matter

Court could not substitute the findings of the selection authority (based upon wisdom) without indication of any arbitrariness and illegality

Petitioner had failed to make out any point for interference by High Court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction

Writ petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Estoppel and acquiescence were recognized grounds on the basis of which a writ could be refused, but when it was proved from the record that a person had not been dealt with in accordance with law; and also was not aware of the true facts of the case, he could not be denied the right to approach the court merely on the ground of acquiescence and estoppel; or he had participated in the proceedings, without raising objection.