VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,J. - (1.) THE advertisement inviting application for Dealership was issued on 2nd September, 2000, and the last date fixed for receipt of the application was 18th October. 2000. The Guidelines styled as "Reservation/Selection Policy" as issued in the year 1998 were in vogue when the advertisement was issued on 2nd September, 2000. However, vide Office Memorandum dated 9th October, 2000, fresh guidelines for selection of Retail Outlets were issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, this office memorandum undoubtedly suggests that in supersession of the earlier communication, these guidelines would be applicable from the date of issue of this Office Memorandum i.e. 9th October, 2000.
(2.) THE main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant - petitioner, both before the learned Single Judge as well as before us is that the selection procedure should have been governed and regulated by 1998 guidelines and not on the guidelines issued on 9th October. 2000. During the course of arguments, we asked Mr. Sahay, learned counsel for the appellant to point out the specific item which, according to him, is the main plank of the appellants argument, if the guidelines of 1998 and the guidelines formulated on 9th October, 2000 have to be distinguished. Mr. Sahay fairly told us that the only ground of attack as far as the appellant is concerned is that whereas in 1998 guidelines, the letter of intent was mandatorily required to be issued within 165 days from the date of advertisement, under the 9th October, 2000 guidelines, this provision has been altered to prescribe that "all efforts should be made" to issue the Letter of intent within 165 days from the date of advertisement. Undoubtedly under 1998 guidelines, issuance of Letter of Intent within 165 days was mandatory. Under 9th October, 2000 guidelines, the mandatory nature of this requirement has been done away with and it has been made directory or, if one may say so, desirable or advisable. According to Mr. Sahay, this is the only point of dispute now left to be considered in this case. Undoubtedly the interview was held on 19th April. 2001, and, as noticed above, the advertisement was issued on 2nd September. 2000. Under 1998 guidelines, total 129 days were required, as the maximum period, from the date of publication of advertisement till the holding of interview. For interview, the period of 9 days was prescribed. Even though broadly speaking, the time - frame under 9th October, 2000 guidelines remains the same i.e. 129 days and the holding of interview in 9 days, the appellant without any murmur and protest appeared in the interview even though it was held much after the aforesaid period of 129 days. Actually it was held much beyond even the period of 165 days. The appellant acquiesced in this. The appellant cannot be allowed now to approbrate and reprobrate, he once having appeared in the interview and having participated in the selection process and having taken a chance. One cannot be permitted to turn around, retract and complain about the interview having been held beyond the period of 165 days and on that basis, the selection is wrong. This will not be permissible according to law. This cannot be allowed to happen.
(3.) THIS Court is always reluctant to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a case where it finds that the petitioner has taken a chance in the selection process, having participated in the same and later on, finding that it has remained unsuccessful, comes to this Court challenging various aspects of the selection process on the grounds of illegalities and irregularities. In such cases, this Court finds that the petitioner having acquiesced in the arrangement relating to the selection process, cannot thus be permitted to turn around and urge that since the selection process was illegal, the same be quashed. If the petitioner felt that there was some illegality in the selection process, it was always open to him not to participate in the same, thus keeping all options open to him. Having participated in the selection process, the petitioner closed such options, thus exposing him to the attack of acquiescence, effectively shutting out the remedies available to him under Article 226 of the Constitution.;