http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SUNEETA AGGRWAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/02/2000

BENCH: V.N.Khare, N.S.Hegde,

JUDGMENT:

     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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.