Suneeta
Aggrwal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors [2000] INSC 50 (11 February 2000)
V.N.Khare,
N.S.Hegde,
Leave
granted.
There
is a government aided institution known as 'Hindu Girls College, in the town of 'Jagadhari', Haryana.
The
management of the institution advertised a post of Hindi Lecturer. In response
to the said advertisement, the appellant and other persons applied for
selection to the said post. The Selection Committee on 15th July 1996 interviewed the candidates. The
nominee of the Vice Chancellor and the Director of High Education approved the
name of the appellant to be placed at Sr. No. 2 whereas, one Kiran Bala was
placed at Sr. No. 1. However, the Selection Committee recommended the name of
the appellant for the said post. This was not approved by the Vice Chancellor
who, by order dated 5.8.96, directed the said post to be re-advertised.
Accordingly,
on 13th November 1996, the post was again advertised and
in response thereto, the appellant again applied for being considered for the
post of Hindi Lecturer.
The
date of interview was fixed as I0th January, 1997. On the said date the
appellant appeared before the Selection Committee without any kind of protest
and simultaneously filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Vice
Chancellor dated 5.8.96 whereby the Vice Chancellor disapproved the
recommendation of the Selection Committee and issued a direction for a fresh
advertisement. On 10.1.97, an interim order was passed in the writ petition
filed by the appellant to the effect that the selection process may go on, but
the result of the same be not declared. However, this interim order was not
brought to the notice of the Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor, being
ignorant of the said order, approved the name of Mrs.
Kamlesh
Kumari Bhatia whose name was recommended by the subsequent Sclectioin Committee
for appointment to the post of Hindi Lecturer. Consequent upon the said order
of approval, Mrs. Kamlesh Kumari Bhatia joined the said post.
Subsequently,
when the interim order was brought to the notice of the Vice Chancellor, he
withdrew the order of approval. Mrs. Kamlesh Kumari Bhatia challenged the said
withdrawal order passed by the Vice Chancellor by means of a separate writ
petition. The writ petitions filed by Suneeta Aggarwal (appellant) and Mrs. Kamlesh
Kumari Bhatia were heard together. The writ petition tiled by the appellant was
dismissed whereas the writ petition filed by Mrs.
Kamlesh
Kumari Bhatia was allowed.
We
have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Narration
of aforestated facts would show that the appellant had disentitled herself to
seek relief m the writ petition filed by her before the High Court. The
appellant did not challenge the order of the Vice Chancellor declining to
accord approval to her selection and, on 2 tile contrary, she allied afresh to
the said post in response to re-advertisement of the post without any kind of
protest. Not only did she apply for the post, but also she appeared before the
Selection Committee constituted consequent upon re- advertisement of the post
and that too without any kind of protest, and on the same day she filed a writ
petition against the order of the Vice Chancellor declining to accord his
approval and obtained an ad-interim order. In the writ petition she also did
not disclose that she has applied for die post consequent upon second
advertisement. The appellant having appeared before die Selection Committee
without any protest and having taken a chance, we are of the view that the
appellant is estopped by her conduct from challenging the earlier order of the
Vice Chancellor. The High Court was justified in refusing to accord any
discretionary relief in favour of the appellant.
The
writ petition was rightly dismissed.
Accordingly,
the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Back
