IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P.(T) - No. 6492 of 2008 Date of decision: 13. 7. 2010 Sita Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . no For the petitioner: Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No. 1 and 2. Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate, for respondent No. 3 and 4. Surinder Singh, J (oral). By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the selection of respondent No. 4 as Panchayat Sahayak, on the ground that she was already appointed against the said post and later in a fresh test/interview, respondent No. 4 was selected which is wrong and illegal thus, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 2. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the selection of the petitioner was contrary to the guidelines issued by the Panchayati Raj Department of the State Government as such fresh test was conducted for the selection of Panchayat Sahayak wherein petitioner also participated. Since respondent No. 4 scored highest marks and 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes. - 2 - was selected for the post, therefore, petitioner cannot assail the selection of respondent No. 4. 3. Heard and gone through the record. 4. It is a fact that the petitioner along with respondent No. 4 appeared in the test. When respondent No. 4 got highest marks and was selected for the post in question, then petitioner assailed it by way of filing the present petition. 5. Since the petitioner did not assail the fresh selection process conducted by respondent No. 3 rather opted to appear in the test before the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose without any kind of protest and having taken a chance thus in view of the judgment of the apex Court in Suneeta Aggarwal versus State of Haryana and others (2000) 2 SCC 615, she is estopped by her conduct from challenging the impugned order. Hence the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. (Surinder Singh, J July 13, 2010 (cm)