from the date of receipt of this order. 5. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for one of the contesting respondent submitted that liberty may be reserved to challenge the proposed amendment. Such liberty is not necessary for the reasons that as and when Rules or amended rules were issued afresh, it would be a fresh cause of action to the respective parties.” 13. Learned Senior Counsels for the Appellants, Mr. Rajeev Dhavan, Mr. Ranjit Kumar and Ms. Meenakshi Arora urged before this Court that at the outset, the Writ Petitioners, having knowingly participated in the selection process under the Advertisement were bound by the doctrine of acquiescence and therefore, could not have challenged the eligibility criteria post- facto. Reliance is placed on Punjab National Bank vs. Anit Kumar Das (2021) 12 SCC 80 and The Chairman SBI & Anr. vs. M.J. James (2022) 2 SCC 301. 14. The learned counsels for the Appellants also contended that the cancellation