Full Judgment Text
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.