Judgment
CA No. 1097 of 2000@ SLP (C) No. 16248 of 1997
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 applied for selection to the said post. The Selection Committee on 15-7-1996 interviewed the candidates. The nominee of the Vice-Chancellor and the Director of Higher Education approved the name of the appellant to be placed at Sl. No. 2 whereas, one Kiran Bala was placed at Sl. 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 5-8-1996, directed the said post to be readvertised.
3. Accordingly, on 13-11-1996, 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 10-1-1997. 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 5-8-1996 whereby the Vice-Chancellor disapproved the recommendation of the Selection Committee and issued a direction for a fresh advertisement. On 10-1-1997, 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 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. 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 filed by the appellant was dismissed whereas the writ petition filed by Mrs Kamlesh Kumari Bhatia was allowed.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Narration of the afore-stated 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 approval to her selection and, on the contrary, she applied afresh for the said post in response to readvertisement of the post without any kind of protest. Not only did she apply for the post, but she also appeared before the Selection Committee constituted consequent upon readvertisement 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 had applied for the post consequent upon the 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-Chancellor. The High Court was justified in refusing to accord any discretionary relief in favour of the appellant. The writ petition was rightly dismissed.
5. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
SLP (C) No. 9541 of 1998
6. On the application of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn.