SUNEETA AGGARWALversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

                                St:NEETA AGGARWAL                                       A
                                             v.
                          STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

                                  FEBRL.:ARY 11, 2000

                    [V.~. KHARE Al\ffi N. SANTOSH HEDGE, JJ.]                           B

              Se1Vice law-Recrnitment-f'ost of Lecturei--Order of Vice Chancellor
        declining to accord approval to appellant's selection-Re-advertisement of the
        post-Appellant appeared before Selection Committee without any
        protest-Whether appellant could challenge earlier order of Vice Chancel-        C
        /or-Held, ncr-She was estopped by her conducH11dia11 Evidence Act,
        1872---sec. 114.

               The appellant applied for selection to a post of Hindi lecturer in a
        government aided institution. The Selection Committee recommended the
        name of the appellant. However, this was not approved by the Vice Chan-         D
        cellor, who directed the said post to be re-advertised. The post was again
        advertised. The appellant applied again and appeared before the Selection
        Committee without any kind of protest and on the same day she liled a
        writ petition against the order of the Vice-Chancellor declining to accord
        his approval and obtained an ad-interim order that the result of the            E
        selection process should not be declared. Subsequently, the writ petition
        filed by the appellant was dismissed. This appeal had been filed against
        the judgment of the High Court.

              Dismissing the appeal, this Court
                                                                                        F
              HELD : 1.1. In the instant case 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
        to the said post in response to re-advertisement of the post without any
        kind of protest. She also appeared before Selection Committee constituted       G
        consequent upon re-advertisement of the post and that too without any
        kind of protest. 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
        applied for the post consequent upon ~cond advertisement. The appellant         H
                                            783
    784                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2000) 1 S:C.R.
A having appeared before the Selection Committee without any protest and
    having taken a chance, she was 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 by the High Court. (785-E-H]

B           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1097 of.
    2000.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3.97 of the Punjab &
    Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 448 of 1997.
c         Ujagar Singh, Sona! Jain, Aditya Kr. Choudhary, Vgra Shankar
    Prasad, Girish Agnihotri, Mrs. Shurestha Bagga, Naresh Bakshi, Ms.
    Naresh Bakshi, Mahabir Singh, Abdus Sattar, Ms. Halida Khatun, Neeraj
    Bagga, Manish Mohan, Neeraj Kr. Jain, Ms. Shikha Roy, Sanjeev K. Pabbi,
    Prem Malhotra, Girish Agnihotri, Ms. Tanuj Sharma, Ajay Siwach, Mr.
D   Seeraj Bagga and Ms. Shika Ray Pabbi for the appearing parties.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    CA. No. 109712000@ S.L.P. (C) No. 16248197

E           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
F advertisement, the appellant and other persons applied for selection to the
  ·said post. The Selection Commitke on 15th July, 1996 interviewed the
   candidates. The nominee of the Vice Chancellor and the Director of High
   Education approved the name of !he appellant to be placed at Sr. No. 2
   whereas, one Kiran Bala was placed at Sr. No. l. However, the Selection
   Committee recommended the name of the appellant for the said post. This
G 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
H for the post of Hindi Lacturer. The date of interview was fixed as 10th
                    SUNEETAAGGARWALv. STATE                             785

. January, 1997. On the said date the appellant appeared before the Selec- A
  tion 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
                                                                                8
  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,
                                                                               c
  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 Sunecta Aggarwal (ap- D
  pellant) 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.

       We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Narration of afores- E
lated 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 htr selection and, ou the contrary, she appikd afre;h tu lhe
said post in response to re-advertisement of the post without any kind of
protest. Not only did she apply fur the post, but also she appeared before F
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 the post consequent upon G
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.                                         H
    786                  SUPREME COURT RFPORTS                  (2000] 1 S.C.R.

A         Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

    S.L.P. (C) No. 9541/98

          On the application of the learned counsel for the petitioner, th<.: ·
    special leave petition is dismissed as withdrnwn.
B R.A.                                              Appeal/Petition dismissed.