AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have called in question the cancellation of recruitment process conducted for the post of Accounts
Officer/Assistant Manager by the respondent company vide impugned order dated 29/05/2013 (Annexure PÂ1).
It is stated at the Bar that during the course of pendency of this writ petition, the recruitment process has again been initiated afresh for filling up
the same posts in which petitioners have remained successful and they have been selected for the said post.
Mr. K.R. Nair, learned counsel for the respondents, would submit that in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of
Suneeta Aggarwal v. State of Haryana And Others (2000) 2 SCC 615, the petitioners cannot further challenge the impugned order as they have
already participated in the subsequent recruitment process, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed having become infructuous.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and went through the records.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Suneeta Aggarwal (supra) has held in paragraph 4 as under :Â
“4. 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 tile contrary, she allied afresh to the said post in response to reÂadvertisement 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 adÂinterim 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 Chancellor. The High Court was justified in refusing
to accord any discretionary relief in favour of the appellant. The writ petition was rightly dismissed. â€
Following the principle of law laid by the Supreme Court in Suneeta Aggarwal (supra) and considering the fact that petitioners have already taken a
calculated chance and participated in the second recruitment process wherein they remained successful and they have now been selected for the said
post, they are estopped from challenging the impugned order and even otherwise, cancellation of first recruitment process has been done by the
respondent authorities for valid reasons. As such, I do not find any good ground for quashing the impugned order (Annexure PÂ1) as much water has
been flown and the second recruitment process has already been concluded in which petitioners have remained successful and have been selected for
the said post.
In that view of the matter, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. No cost(s).