JUDGMENT Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record. 2. The petitioner was selected as an Anganwadi worker under the Child Development Project Officer, Pandua ICDS Project Scheme, District–Hooghly, based on an advertisement issued sometime in the year, 2007. Consequently, she was issued an engagement letter by the concerned Child Development Project Officer on 7th August, 2007, acceptance of which was based on certain terms and conditions that were specifically stated therein. It was clearly stated in the said letter that in the event the writ petitioner was agreeable to the specific terms and conditions, she could contact the office of the Child Development Project Officer within 7th August, 2007, for the purpose of being engaged as an Anganwadi worker. 3. It is the admitted position that the petitioner accepted the contents of the letter dated 7th August, 2007, without any demur or protest. Under clause 8 of the terms and conditions, as contained in the said letter dated 7th August, 2007, it has been clearly stated that in the event it was proved that the petitioner had a bachelor’s degree, her engagement would stand automatically terminated and in that case no representation by her would be accepted. 4. The petitioner’s exact date of engagement as an Anganwadi worker has not been stated anywhere in the writ petition. However, it appears that on 26th September, 2007, the concerned Child Development Project Officer issued another memo instructing the petitioner to affirm an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate within 15th October, 2007, proforma whereof was attached thereto. Perusing the proforma affidavit, it appears that the writ petitioner was supposed to declare, inter alia, that “I have not passed Graduation or any other higher degree examination before 5th July, 2006.” The petitioner never submitted such an affidavit, in terms of the memo dated 26th September, 2007, which was required by the concerned Child Development Project Officer. Consequently, by a memo dated 26th September, 2008, the petitioner’s engagement as an Anganwadi Worker was terminated. The said memo dated 26th September, 2008, is now the subject matter of challenge in the present writ proceeding. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner, in support of his case, has relied on a Special Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rina Dutta & Ors. Vs. Anjali Mahato & Ors., reported in 2010(2) CLJ(Cal) 321. The said memo dated 26th September, 2008, is now the subject matter of challenge in the present writ proceeding. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner, in support of his case, has relied on a Special Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rina Dutta & Ors. Vs. Anjali Mahato & Ors., reported in 2010(2) CLJ(Cal) 321. He has also relied on an unreported judgment rendered by an Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court on 24th August, 2011, in W. P. 12204 (W) of 2011 (Manashi Ghosh Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). 6. The ratio of the two judgments, quoted above, have no manner of application at all in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Although in Rina Dutta (supra), the issue related to the same advertisement for the post of Anganwadi wroker, based on which the writ petitioner herein participated in the recruitment process, the Special Bench in that matter had no occasion to consider the application of the principles of estoppel and acquiescence in a case where the concerned Anganwadi worker – upon her participation and selection based on the advertisement – accepted, unconditionally, the specific terms and conditions laid down by the concerned Child Development Project Officer in the letter dated 7th August, 2007, without any demur or protest and was consequently engaged, based upon such unconditional acceptance of the terms and conditions, post-selection. 7. The unreported judgment of this Court rendered in Manashi Ghosh (supra) follows the judgment rendered by the Special Bench in Rina Dutta’s case, but again does not consider the applicability of the principles of estoppel and acquiescence in such a case. 8. As observed hereinbefore, in the facts of the instant case, the writ petitioner was issued the letter dated 7th August, 2007, which contained certain specific terms and conditions – including clause 8 – which has been referred earlier. It is the admitted position that the petitioner unconditionally accepted such specific terms and conditions, as stated in the letter dated 7th August, 2007, without any demur or protest and was consequently engaged as an Anganwadi worker on basis thereof. 9. In view of such unconditional acceptance of the specific terms and conditions, as contained under letter dated 7th August, 2007, the writ petitioner cannot profit from the ratio of the judgment of the learned Special Bench or the learned Single Bench, referred hereinbefore. 9. In view of such unconditional acceptance of the specific terms and conditions, as contained under letter dated 7th August, 2007, the writ petitioner cannot profit from the ratio of the judgment of the learned Special Bench or the learned Single Bench, referred hereinbefore. For reasons stated above, this Court is unable to grant any relief to the writ petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.