Suneeta Aggarwal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1097 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16248/97)
(S.L.P. (C) No. 9541/98)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3.97 of the Punjab & Harya-na High Court in C.W.P. No. 448 of 1997)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16248/97)
(S.L.P. (C) No. 9541/98)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3.97 of the Punjab & Harya-na High Court in C.W.P. No. 448 of 1997)
Petitioner: Suneeta Aggarwal
Respondent: State of Haryana & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1097 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16248/97)
(S.L.P. (C) No. 9541/98)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3.97 of the Punjab & Harya-na High Court in C.W.P. No. 448 of 1997)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16248/97)
(S.L.P. (C) No. 9541/98)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3.97 of the Punjab & Harya-na High Court in C.W.P. No. 448 of 1997)
Judges: V.N. KHARE & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 11, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. Ujagar Singh, Senior Advocate, Mr. Sonal Jain, Mr. Aditya Kr. Choudhary, Mr. Ugra Shankar Prasad, Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Mrs. Shurestha Bagga, Mr. Naresh Bakshi, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Mr. Maha-bir Singh, Mr. Abdus Sattar, Ms. Halida Khatun, Mr. Neeraj Bagga, Mr. Manish Mohan, Mr. Neeraj Kr. Jain, Ms. Shikha Roy, Mr. San-jeev K. Pabbi, Mr. Prem Malhotra, Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Ms. Tanuj Sharma, Mr. Ajay Siwach, Ms. Seeraj Bagga, Ms. Shika
Ray Pabbi, Advocates for the appearing parties.
Ray Pabbi, Advocates for the appearing parties.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Constitution
Article 226 – Post of Hindi Lecturer – Candidate recommended but not approved by Vice-Chancellor – Post re-advertised – Candidate re-appearing – No challenge to orders of Vice-Chancellor earlier – But candidate appearing for interview and simultaneously filing writ – Interim orders passed by High Court not brought to notice of Vice-Chancellor, who approved name of someone else – Later approval withdrawn, when orders brought to notice of Vice-Chancellor – Said candidate having joined, challenged the orders – Both petitions heard together – Candidate’s writ dismissed – On appeal. Held that candidate was estopped from challenging the orders of Vice-Chancellor, by her own conduct. Writ was rightly dismissed. (Para 4)
Constitution
Article 226 – Post of Hindi Lecturer – Candidate recommended but not approved by Vice-Chancellor – Post re-advertised – Candidate re-appearing – No challenge to orders of Vice-Chancellor earlier – But candidate appearing for interview and simultaneously filing writ – Interim orders passed by High Court not brought to notice of Vice-Chancellor, who approved name of someone else – Later approval withdrawn, when orders brought to notice of Vice-Chancellor – Said candidate having joined, challenged the orders – Both petitions heard together – Candidate’s writ dismissed – On appeal. Held that candidate was estopped from challenging the orders of Vice-Chancellor, by her own conduct. Writ was rightly dismissed. (Para 4)
C.A. No. 1097/2000 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 16248/97
JUDGEMENT:
1. Leave granted.
2. 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 ap-plied for selection to the said post. The Selection Committee on 15th July 1996 interviewed the candidates. The nominee of the Vice Chancellor and the Direction 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.
3. Accordingly, on 13th November 1996, the post was again adver-tised and in response thereto, the appellant again applied for being considered for the post of Hindi Lecturer. The date of interview was fixed as 10th January, 1997. On the said date the appellant appeared before the Selection Committee without any kind of protest and simultaneously filed a writ petition chal-lenging 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-Chancel-lor. The Vice-Chancellor, being ignorant of the said order, approved the name of Mrs. Kamlesh Kumari Bhatia whose name was recommended by the subsequent Selection Committee for appointment to the post of Hindi Lecturer. Consequent upon the said order of approval, Mrs. Kamlesh Kumari Bhatia joined the said post. Subse-quently, 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 filed by the appellant was dismissed whereas the writ petition filed by Mrs. Kamlesh Bhatia was allowed.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Narration of aforestated facts would show that the appellant had disentitled herself to seek relief in the writ petition filed by her before the High Court. The appellant did not challenge the order of the Vice-Chancellor declining to accord to approval to her selection and, on the contrary, she applied 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 ap-peared 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 ad-interim order. In the writ petition she also did not disclose that she has applied for the post consequent upon second advertisement. The appellant having appeared before the 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-Chancel-lor. The High Court was justified in refusing to accord any discretionary relief in favour of the appellant. The writ peti-tion was rightly dismissed.
5. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
S.L.P. © No. 9541/98
6. On the application of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
2. 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 ap-plied for selection to the said post. The Selection Committee on 15th July 1996 interviewed the candidates. The nominee of the Vice Chancellor and the Direction 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.
3. Accordingly, on 13th November 1996, the post was again adver-tised and in response thereto, the appellant again applied for being considered for the post of Hindi Lecturer. The date of interview was fixed as 10th January, 1997. On the said date the appellant appeared before the Selection Committee without any kind of protest and simultaneously filed a writ petition chal-lenging 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-Chancel-lor. The Vice-Chancellor, being ignorant of the said order, approved the name of Mrs. Kamlesh Kumari Bhatia whose name was recommended by the subsequent Selection Committee for appointment to the post of Hindi Lecturer. Consequent upon the said order of approval, Mrs. Kamlesh Kumari Bhatia joined the said post. Subse-quently, 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 filed by the appellant was dismissed whereas the writ petition filed by Mrs. Kamlesh Bhatia was allowed.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Narration of aforestated facts would show that the appellant had disentitled herself to seek relief in the writ petition filed by her before the High Court. The appellant did not challenge the order of the Vice-Chancellor declining to accord to approval to her selection and, on the contrary, she applied 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 ap-peared 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 ad-interim order. In the writ petition she also did not disclose that she has applied for the post consequent upon second advertisement. The appellant having appeared before the 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-Chancel-lor. The High Court was justified in refusing to accord any discretionary relief in favour of the appellant. The writ peti-tion was rightly dismissed.
5. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
S.L.P. © No. 9541/98
6. On the application of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
