The doctrine of equitable estoppel has no application to a case where a person is given an unequivocal assurance and on the faith thereof, he acted detrimental to his interest and he suffered an irretrievable injury in that pursuit.

( 1 ) THIS case demonstrates to the tilt of several shortcomings as to how, despite conclusive facts, when persons unfamiliar with legal process were called upon to adjudicate the claims entwined with legal issues would. falter in the performance thereof and how due to notorious red-tapism the benign constitutional distributive justice would be defeated due to procrastination calling utmost expeditious attention to remedy the acute evils at the highest State level.

( 2 ) BEFORE pointing them out and elaboration thereof, it is necessary to state the material facts in extenso. The petitioner, Nadimpally Bhuvaneswara Rao, son of Tirupathirao, resident of Namnoor in Luxsettipet Taluk of Adilabad District. obtained a social status certificate based on the recommendation made by the Sarpanch and the Patwari of that village that he belongs to "koppula Velma" community which is recognised by the State Government as Backward Class d Group. On the basis thereof, he sought admission into the First Year M. B. B. S. Course for 1981-82 and was provisionally selected on Sept. 31, 1981 and he was admitted on Oct. 14, 1981. By letter dated Oct. 24, 1981, the respondent promptly has written to the Director of Backward Classes for confirmation of the social status of the petitioner to be belonging to Koppula Velma caste. The Director, in his turn, leisurely after five months, by letter dated Mar. 16, 1982, wrote to the District Collector, Adilabad who in turn transmitted to the Tahsildar, Luxsettipet for report. After expiry of seven months, viz. , on Oct. 12, 1983, the Tahsildar has written that the petitioner is a Velma by caste; that he does not belong to Koppula Velma, even that caste is not existing in Luxsettipet taluk; his father is the patel of Namnoor village; he had Ac. 5415 guntas of dry land and Ac. 1. 27 guntas of wet land and he belongs to a well-to-do family. The District Collector, in turn, after two months, by letter dated Dec. 8, 1983, transmitted to the Director. By letter dated Dec. 26, 1983, the Director wrote to the respondent that the petitioner does not lifelong to Koppula Velma and so he is not Backward Class person. By notice dated Jan. 11, 1984, the Principal detailed the circumstances referred to earlier and enclosed the certificates of the Tahsildar, the District Collector and the Director and called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why this admission should not be cancelled. From the date of admission till date in initiation of action to cancel the admission, two years and three months have passed by. The petitioner promptly filed Writ Petition No. 1371/84 and this Court, expecting to be further delayed, at the admission stage dismissed it holding that the respondent would conduct an enquiry independently without relying upon the opinion expressed by the Director of Backward Classes. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has submitted his explanation dated Feb. 1, 1984. Thereafter, the respondent being the senior Professor in Medical field and who is expected to devote his time and attention to the teaching as well as hospital duties, was baffled with quasi-judicial process of conducting an enquiry. In his righteous thinking that he would be needlessly entangled with the process of conducting an enquiry, sought the opinions from the Director of Medical Services, the Govt. and the Govt. Pleader, respectively. In that process considerable time had lapsed. Ultmnately when he was advised to proceed with the enquiry he issued a notice to the petitioner on June 25, 1985 to attend to the enquiry on July 85 1985. The petitioner accordingly attended. The Principal, in right earnestness, questioned the petitioner putting relevant questions and ascertained whether he would examine his father and his uncle, Mukunda Rao. He also asked the petitioner whether the rrahsildar, Luxsettinet and the Director of Backward Classes have any personal hostility against him since he expressed apprehension that the former