Judgment:
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Before considering the question referred by the Supreme Court in the order dated 4th September, 1998 passed on the interlocutory petition filed by the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 306 of 1998, we would like to state in brief the facts of the case.
2. The appellant- Dr. Mrs Sumedha Tipathy was first appointed as the Principal of Bokaro Mahila College on temporary basis by the Governing Body on the basis of an advertisement dated 10.9.1982. On 1.9.1984 the Commission accorded its concurrence for appointment of the appellant initially for a period of six months and subsequently by order dated 2.12.1985 extended the concurrence until further orders or till a final recommendation was made by it for appointment to the post of Principal in the said College. Under those circumstances the petitioner was holding the post of Principal of the College on temporary basis.
3. In the year 1992 the Commission invited fresh application by advertisement dated 29.8.92 for the post of Principal in the said College. The appellant challenged the said decision of the Commission by filing CWJC No. 8657/94. The contention of the appellant in the said writ petition was that earlier on 1.9.91 the Commission had made advertisement for the post of principal in the College and in both the occasions the appellant had made applications along with others. Although, the selection process was completed, the Commission was not making any recommendation on the basis of that advertisement and erroneously issued a fresh advertisement. The Commission appeared in the writ petition and filed affidavit stating inter alia that in response to 1991 advertisement it received applications from several candidates, out of which only two candidates including the appellant were female candidates. One of the two female candidates was not found eligible and, therefore, only the appellant was left as the sole candidate for which the Commission was unable to make a single recommendation. In the said affidavit, it was further stated by the commission that it had taken a policy decision not to consider any male candidate for the post of principle in the College, as it was a Girls College. The said writ petition being CWJC No. 8657/94 was finally disposed of by a Division Bench in terms of the judgment dated 14.12.94. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:
In this case, however, we need not go into this question as on admitted facts and petitioner was not the single candidate before the Commission. It is an admitted position that a number of candidates including male candidates had applied in response to the advertisement. It is also admitted that the male candidates were also called for interview by the Commission. Later, however, the Commission declined to take them into consideration or to recommend their names on the plea that on principle the Commission has decided to give due weightage to lady candidates for appointment on the post of Principal/Lecturer in any girls college.
On the Commission's own showing, therefore, only due weightage was to be given to a lady candidate and there was no policy or principle that the male candidates must be completely excluded from consideration for appointment in a girls college. Moreover, in the advertisement, dated 01.9.91 there was no such restriction. The advertisement did not indicate that any preference would be given to a lady candidate, much less that the post was exclusively specified for a lady candidates.
For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that the Commission committed an error in not taking into consideration the male candidates, who had applied in response to that advertisement, we further find that the Commission had more than one candidates before it for consideration. The Commission's action therefore, in not making the recommendation on the plea that it had only a single eligible lady candidate before it is wholly untenable in the eye of law.
We are, accordingly, constrained to interfere win the matter and we direct the Commission to make its recommendation the basis of the advertisement, dated 01.09.91, after taking into consideration the eligible male candidates also who had applied in response to the advertisement and were interviewed by the Commission. The Bokaro Mahila College will be consequently excluded from the impugned advertisement dated 29.8.1994. Recommendations, as directed above, should be made within six weeks from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order.
4. It appears that in compliance of the aforesaid judgment passed by a Division Bench of Patna High Court, the Commission through its letter dated 6.5.95 recommended the name of respondent No. 6, Shambhu Prasad, as serial No. 1 and one Dr. Narayan Baidya as serial No. 2 for the post of Principal, Bokaro Mahila College. The appellant challenged the said decision of the Commission by filing another writ petition being CWJC No. 3472/95 and also sought further direction from the Court for her confirmation on the post of Principal, Bokaro Mahila College. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Bench of Patna High Court on 1.11.96. While dismissing the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3472/95, the Bench held:
From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission it appears that in the interview conducted in January, 1994 all the candidates, male as well as the lady candidate, the petitioner, were evaluated by the Selection Committee. However, the male candidates though found superior by the Selection Committee, were not taken into consideration by the Commission because of its policy decision that it should not make recommendation of male candidates for appointment in a girls College. However, when this Court directed the Commission to take into consideration the male candidates also it recommend the two names as they were found superior in the evaluation made by the Selection Committee. The action of the Commission therefore appears to be unexceptionable. I may note here though it appears to be a hard case for the petitioner, it was on her own application and on the basis of the submission made on her behalf in the earlier writ petition (CWJC No. 8657/94) that the earlier judgment by a Bench of this Court was delivered which has now become final and cannot be disregarded. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this application. It is, accordingly dismissed.
5. Against the aforesaid judgment passed in CWJC No. 3472/95 the appellant preferred letters patent appeal being LPA No. 1363/96. The said appeal was eventually dismissed on 27.1.97 by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court. In the said appeal, it was argued by the appellant that the Commission had no jurisdiction to advertise the post and that in view of the letter dated 5th March, 1983 issued by the University, affiliation was granted to the College on the condition that the post of Principal must be filled up by a lady teacher. While dismissing the appeal the Division Bench observed:
In our view, all these questions could have been raised by the appellant before the Division Bench, which passed the order, referred to above, in the writ application, pursuant to which the commission has made fresh recommendation having found the male candidates to be superior to the appellant. Therefore, it is not open for this Court to take a different view. Moreover, the recommendation of the Commission that other two candidates were found superior being decision of the expert body has not rightly been challenged before us.
In view of this, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
6. The appellant then moved the Supreme Court against the aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench in Special Leave Petition, which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 306/98. In the said appeal it was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court the letter dated 17th November, 1980 allegedly issued by the Government of Bihar to the Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University regarding sanction of teaching post in the College. It was submitted that in the said communication the post of Pradhanacharyaa (Lady Principal) was sanctioned. The appellant also referred another letter dated 15th March, 1983 allegedly issued by the Deputy Registrar, Ranchi University to the Management of the College regarding the continuance of the affiliation of the College that a qualified lady should be appointed as Principal of the College. On the basis of these two letters the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The operative portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is quoted herein below:
The genuineness of those documents has not been questioned in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 6. In view of these documents it must be held that the post of the Principal of the College has to be held by a lady and the recommendation that has been made by the Commission whereby the names of respondent Nos. 6 and 7, who are males, have been recommended for appointment on the post cannot be upheld.
Shri B.B. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Commission states that he Commission is prepared to hold a fresh selection for appointment of a lady Principal in the college.
The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the Commission is directed to select a suitable lady candidate for appointment to the post of Principal of the college. If the appellant submits her application in this regard and if it is found that she has crossed the maximum age prescribed for such appointment she may be granted relaxation in that regard. No cost.
7. After the aforesaid judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court, the respondent filed an interlocutory application in the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 306 of 1998 being I.A. No. 03 of 1998 for recalling the judgment and order dated 19.1.1998 on the ground inter alia that the copy of the letter dated 17.11.1980 and letter dated 5th March, 1983 on which reliance was placed were not the correct copy of the letters issued by the Ranchi University and the State of Bihar. Before deciding the said interlocutory application, the Supreme Court called for the original letters from the State of Bihar and the successor Ranchi University, namely Vinoba Bhave University. According to the respondent, the original letter dated 17th November, 1980 does not contain the word 'Pradhanacharyaa', but contains the word 'Pradhanacharya'. After hearing the counsels for the parties and comparing the letters, the Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the Patna High Court in term of order dated 4th September, 1998 for considering the question whether the post of Principal of the College has to be held only by a lady or male could also be appointed on the said post. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the order and direction given by the Supreme Court in the order dated 4th September, 1998 is quoted herein below:
A comparison of the copy of the letter dated November 17, 1980 produced by Shri B.B. Singh from the record of the Commission and the original letter dated November 17, 1980 produced by Shri A. Sharan from the record of the University shows that they do not tally and there is marked difference between the two. In the Original letter produced by Shri A. Sharan the word used is 'Pradhanacharya', while the word used in the copy of the said letter produced by Shri Singh is 'Pradhanacharyaa'. Moreover, the numericals in the original letter produced by Shri A. Sharan are in Devnagri script, while iii in the numericals in the copy produced by Shri Singh are in Roman script. On the reversed side of the copy produced by Shri Singh there is an endorsement that copies are sent to the authorities mentioned therein, including the Secretary to the Commission while in the original letter produced by Shri A. Sharan, there is no endorsement on the reverse side of the letter. As regards, the letter dated March 5, 1983, Shri L. Nageshwara Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the copy of the letter dated March 5, 1983 filed by the appellant bearing the No.P/1325 while the copy of the letter dated March, 5, 1983 filed as Annexure-C-2 to the affidavit of Shri Oraon bears the No. P/1331 which means that they are two different documents. Shri L. Nageshwara Rao has also invited our attention to the affidavit of Shri Satish Chandra Lal who was Secretary of the College in 1983 dated May 4, 1998, wherein he has stated that he received letter No. P/1325 from the Deputy Registrar (I), Ranchi University.
In this state of the record we feel that the question as to whether the post of Principal of the College was to be filled only by a lady teacher or males could also be appointed on the said post involves an enquiry into the genuineness of the documents aforementioned. We are of the view that the High Court would be in a better position to have such an enquiry conducted. In these circumstances, the order dated January 19, 1998 will stand modified as under:
The words
The genuineness of these documents has not been questioned in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 6. In view of these documents it must be held that the post of the Principal of the College has to be held by a lady and the recommendation that has been made by the Commission whereby the names of respondents Nos. 6 and 7, whose are males, have been recommended for appointment on the post cannot be upheld.
Shri B.B. Singh, the learned Counsel appearing for the Commission, states that the Commission is prepared to hold a fresh selection for appointment of a lady principal in the College.
The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the Commission is directed to select a suitable lady candidate for appointment to the post of Principal of the College. If the appellant submits her application in this regard and if it is found that she has crossed the maximum age prescribed for such appointment she may be granted relaxation in that regard. No costs
shall be substituted by the words
Since the genuineness of the documents on which reliance has been placed by the appellant is doubted, it may be necessary to hold an inquiry into the genuineness of the same. We are of the view that the High Court would be in a better position to have such an enquiry conducted. The matter is, therefore, remitted to the High Court for considering the question whether the post of Principal of the College has to be held only by a lady or male could also be appointed on the said post after affording an opportunity to the parties to produce the relevant material. If the High Court feels that it is necessary to hold an inquiry into the genuineness of the documents, it may have such inquiry conducted by any Judicial Officer. It will be open to the High Court to give any interim direction with regard to the appointment on the post of Principal.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
I.A. No. 3 filed by respondent No. 6 is allowed in these terms.
8. It appears that after remand, the instant Letters Patent Appeal was placed before the Patna High Court on 10.7.2003 and a Division Bench of that Court passed an order for transmitting the records of this appeal to this High Court on the ground that it would be convenient for the parties to produce their relevant records in this Court at the time of inquiry.
9. After the record was received in this High Court, the appeal was placed before us on 4.3.2008. Considering the order and direction passed by the Supreme Court, this Court passed an order for conducting inquiry by a Judicial Officer. Accordingly Mr. A.V. Singh, Director, Judicial Academy, Ranchi, was directed to conduct the inquiry and submit report within a period of eight weeks after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
10. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Director, Judicial Academy conducted inquiry and submitted report dated 23.5.2009. After the submission of the inquiry report by the Director, Judicial Academy, the appeal was listed for hearing on 25.6.2009 and at the request of the appellant, time was granted for filing objection to the said inquiry report. Thereafter, the matter was finally heard.
11. In course of inquiry conducted by the Director, Judicial Academy several officers appeared and their statements were recorded in the inquiry proceeding. The statement of one Satishwar Prasad Singh working on the post of Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University was recorded. He produced correspondence file and got some letters exhibited in the inquiry proceeding. In his statement, he deposed that original file was sent to the concerned lawyer of the Supreme Court, who was appearing in Civil Appeal No. 306/98. Shri Ramyatan Prasad, who had the occasion to deal with the letters, was also examined. Another person, namely, Vijay Kumar, presently working in the Establishment Section of the University, was examined. He has stated that the entire file pertaining to Civil Appeal No. 306/98 was sent to the then Registrar Office. The statement of one Sri Prakash Chand Singh, presently posted as Joint Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar was also recorded. He has stated that he handed over Xerox copy of letter dated 17.11.1980, which was filed as Annexure-C/1 to the counter affidavit of Vinoba Bhave University. He however, stated that he tried to locate the concerned file in the department but the same file was not available in the department. He has stated that in absence of file he cannot say anything about geneunity of letter dated 17.11.1980 as contained in Annexure-C/1 to the counter affidavit filed before the Supreme Court. In his statement, he has stated that at a massive search of the aforesaid file was launched in the department but the file could not be located. The statement of Sri Saileshwar Dhari Singh, working as Professor, Head of Department of Political Science in between 1988 to 1990 and also worked as Secretary of the Government Body of Bokaro Mahila College was recorded. In his statement he stated that he sent requisition to the Bihar College Service Commission to advertise the post of Principal of the College. On question being asked by the Inquiry Officer as to whether he remembers the date on which the requisition was sent, he could not refresh his memory. Similarly, various other persons were also examined. It appears that the Inquiry Officer also recorded the statement of a very important person, namely, Misir Oraon who joined as Registrar of Vinoba Bhave University on 18.12.1994 and remained on the post till 7th March, 1999. Sri Misir Oraon stated that on 15.5.2008 he submitted application addressed to the present Registrar of Vinoba Bhave University requesting him to permit him to inspect the records of L.P.A. No. 1363/96 and Civil Appeal No. 306/98. He stated that the file noting dated 28.8.98 was written under his pen and addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the University, in which he has stated that he had to go to Delhi to file an affidavit in the appeal filed by the appellant. On question Sri Oraon stated that although a counter affidavit was filed in the Supreme Court in I.A. No. 3/4 of 1998 but he could not get the copy of the counter affidavit. Mr. Oraon further stated that the letter No. 1528 dated 17.11.80 issued under the signature of A.K. Biswas the then Joint Secretary, Govt. of Bihar in the name of Registrar, Ranchi University was attested by him and bears his signature. He further stated that he cannot say whether the original letter is with the University or not. The relevant portion of the statement recorded by the Inquiry Officer is quoted herein below:
Sri Misir Oraon was further recalled on 28.3.2009 an his further statement was recorded, but on the question put by the inquiry Officer, as to whether the letter annexed with the affidavit before the Supreme Court of India in I.A. No. 3/4 of 98 arising out of Civil Appeal No. 306/98(Exhibit 14) was filed by him in the Supreme Court of India. He stated that that letter dated 17.11.80 was filed by him but he cannot say that the letter which is filed with Ext.14, was filed or not as the original letter is not before him and this letter does not bear the stamp of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
12. After recording the evidence, the Inquiry Officer came to the following conclusions:
1. From the discussion made above it is apparently clear that Dr. Sharnbhu Sharan Prasad filed a recall petition namely the I.A. No. 3 of 98 in Civil Appeal No. 306 of 98 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Sri B.B. Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar and also on behalf of State of Bihar and also on behalf of Bihar College Service Commission produced the original record of the Commission alongwith the letter dated 17.11.80. Similarly, Sri A. Sharan, Advocate appear on behalf of Vinoba Bhave University also produced the original record. The Hon'ble Court noticed the discrepancy in both the letters as mentioned herein above and thereafter passed the order dated 4th September, 98 recalling its earlier order.
2. Hon'ble Court handed over the original letter along with the documents to their respective Counsels, now more than 11 years have passed in between the original record along with the letter could not be traced either by the Bihar College Service Commission, Department of Human Resources and Vinoba Bhave University only part record have been produced by Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, whose statement has also been discussed in detail hereinabove. The part original record is kept along with the enquiry report.
3. In absence of the original letter now the Inquiry Officer have to come to conclusion only on the basis of the secondary materials which were made available by the parties during the course of enquiry.
4. Dr. (Mrs.) Sumedha Tripathi in her statement and also the documents produced hereinabove has taken a consistent plea that the post of Principal of Bokaro Mahila College was reserved for lady Principal which was the condition precedent for grant of affiliation. But from the perusal of advertisement bearing No. 1/91 published in the Times of India, Patna which is marked as Annexure-8 to the writ application bearing No. C.W.J.C. No. 3472 of 95 filed on behalf of Dr. (Mrs.) Sumedha Tripathi for the post of Principal, which was advertised was general and it was not mentioned that the post was reserved for ladies only.
5. Dr. (Mrs.) Sumedha Tripathi had not challenged this advertisement before any Court of Law and only in paragraph 40 of the writ application have made an averment that appointment of a lady Principal is a precedent for affiliation, along with the writ application the letter dated 17/11/80 was also not annexed.
6. During the Course of enquiry and from the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in Special Leave Petition (Civil ) No. 11962 of 97, the University has taken a stand in paragraph 16 of the Counter Affidavit that the Commission have decided to give due weightage to lady candidates for the appointment on the post of Principal/Lecturers in any Girls College.
7. It further appears that in L.P.A. No. 1363 of 96, Dr. (Mrs.) Sumedha Tripathi filed a Supplementary Affidavit and on the first time brought on record a hand written letter bearing No. 1528 dated 17/11/80 showing that for Bokaro Mahila College for the post of Principal is for a lady candidate. The said document is marked as Annexure --1, to the Supplementary Affidavit filed in L.P.A. No. 1363 of 96.
8. It further appears that nothing is written on the reverse side of the aforesaid annexure.
9. After dismissal of the L.P.A. Dr. (Mrs.) Sumedha Tripathi filed S.L.P. (Civil) No. 11962 of 97 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in which she have annexed the letter dated 17/11/80 which is marked as Annexure -- 1 to the Special Leave Petition.
10. A certified copy of the S.L.P. (Civil) No. 11962 of 97 was filed before the Inquiry Officer (total 51 pages) but, the aforesaid letter dated 17/11/80 issued by Sri A K Biswas the then joint secretary, Dept, of Education, Govt. of Bihar is not annexed along with the copy of the Special Leave Petition.
11. Sri Misir Oraon in his Affidavit filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in I.A. No. 3/4 of 98 in paragraph 6 have categorically stated that Dr. (Mrs.) Sumedha Tripathi personally requested him to attest the letter dated 17/11/80 and he has attested the aforesaid letter. The said letter is marked as Exhibit -- 15 and further Exhibit 5/10 which have been filed on behalf of Dr. (Mrs.) Sumedha Tripathi.
12. This Exhibit 15 along with the Exhibit 5/10 has been created by Dr. (Mrs.) Sumedha Tripathi in order to support her case that the post of Principal of Bokaro Mahila College is reserved for lady candidate when the C.W.J.C. No. 3472 of 95 was dismissed. So, I prima facie hold that Exhibit 15 read with Exhibit 5/10 the alleged letter dated 17/11/80 written b Sri A K Biswas the then joint Secretary, Dept, of Education, Govt. of Bihar addressed to the Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi which have been filed on behalf of Dr. (Mrs.) Sumedha Tripathi is a forged letter.
13. I also submit before the Hon'ble Court that intensive enquiry by an independent agency with coercive power may instituted to find out the complete truth regarding disappearance of the record after the disposal of I.A. No. 3/4 of 98 in Civil Appeal No. 306 of 98 under order dated 4 September, 98 and where after the original record was handed over to the learned Counsel for Bihar College Service Commission and State of Bihar and Vinoba Bhave University as after the disposal of the case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in between the period of 11 years have passed giving the ample opportunity to cause disappearance of the letter and record so that the truth cannot came to the surface. The role of Dr. (Mrs.) Sumedha Tripathi, Sri Ashok Kumar Verma and Sri Misir Oraon along with the other officers of the Vinoba Bhave University who were posted at the relevant time and also the Bihar College Service Commission and Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar may be probed and responsibility may be fixed as they have tried to deceive the Court by creating forged document.
14. This report is submitted for kind perusal and necessary direction.
13. As noticed above, while hearing interlocutory application (I.A. No. 3 of 1998) filed by the respondent, the Supreme Court directed the Registrar to file affidavit and produce original documents. The State of Bihar was also directed to file original documents and also office copy of letter dated 17.11.1980. On perusal of the documents filed by the University and the State of Bihar, the Supreme Court found that on comparison of the copy of letter dated November 17, 1980, they do not tally and there was marked difference between the two documents. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the matter needs to be inquired into to arrive at a conclusion regarding the genuineness of the documents. The Supreme Court accordingly modified the judgment holding that since the genuineness of the documents on which reliance was placed by the appellant was doubted, it was necessary to hold an inquiry into the genuineness of the documents. This Court, therefore, was directed to consider the question whether the post of Principal of the College has to be filled only by a lady or male could also be appointed on the said post after affording opportunity to the parties to produce the relevant materials. The Supreme Court further observed that if the High Court feels necessary, it may get the inquiry conducted by any Judicial Officer. Surprisingly, in the inquiry conducted by the Director, although officers of the University and the State of Bihar appeared, but original documents were not produced. The Inquiry Officer, therefore, recorded his conclusion on the basis of secondary documents which were made available by the parties.
14. We have heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and, Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.
15. Mrs. Ritu Kumar assailed the enquiry report submitted by the Director, Judicial Academy, as being contrary to facts and evidence on record. Learned Counsel submitted that enquiry officer has not correctly appreciated the evidence and has not recorded any finding in relation to genuineness of either of the document. It was contended that in course of enquiry, officials of the Department of Education, State of Bihar and the officers of the Vinoba Bhave University appeared but all of them have subsequently mentioned that they could not verify these two documents as the original documents are not available in their respective offices. According to the learned Counsel, the enquiry officer should have relied upon the letter dated 17.11.1980 in which the word used as 'Pradhanacharyaa'. Lastly, learned Counsel contended that in any evident in the Women's College, lady teacher should be appointed as Principal of the College.
16. Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned Senior Counsel, on the other hand, firstly submitted that the letter produced and relied upon from the side of the appellant cannot be believed and the enquiry officer has rightly held that these two documents are forged documents. Learned Counsel contended that the appellant did not challenge the first advertisement bearing No. 1/91 which was advertised as general and not mentioned that the post was reserved for lady candidate only. Learned Counsel submitted that the question as to whether post of Principal of the College was reserved for a lady or a male could also be accommodated, has bet set at rest in the earlier decision passed by a Division Bench of Patna High Court and the same attained its finality inasmuch as the appellant did not challenge the said decision. Hence, the appellant cannot be allowed to raise the same issue on the basis of some documents which were never produced and the genuineness of which was doubted by the Court.
17. It appears from the inquiry report that the inquiry officer instead of coming to a conclusive finding on the question of genuineness of the documents, submitted that intensive inquiry by an independent agency may be conducted to find out complete truth regarding disappearance of the records after disposal of interlocutory application by the Supreme Court. Admittedly after disposal of the case by the Supreme Court, the original record was handed over to the counsel appearing for the Bihar College Service Commission in the State of Bihar and the Vinoba Bhave University.
18. As noticed above, the parties are in litigating terms since 1992 when applications were invited for the post of Principal in the said Bokaro Mahila College. The appellant challenged the said decision of the Commission in C.W.J.C. No. 8657 of 1994 not on the ground that Commission should have invited applications only from the lady candidates but on the ground that although selection process was completed, the Commission was not making any recommendation to any candidate. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Commission to make its recommendation on the basis of advertisement after taking into consideration the eligible male candidates also who had applied in response to the advertisement and were interviewed by the Commission. It is pertinent to mention here that the said decision was not challenged by the appellant on the ground that a male candidate could have been considered for appointment. On the contrary, when the Commission through its letter dated 6.5.1995 recommended the name of respondent No. 6 at serial No. 1 and one Dr. Narayan Vaidya at serial No. 2 for the post of Principal of the College, the appellant challenged the said decision by filing another writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3472 of 1995. The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground inter alia that the earlier judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8657 of 1994 attained its finality and, therefore, a fresh ground that a lady teacher could only be appointed as Principal of the College cannot be considered again.
19. As noticed above, the genuineness of the documents, particularly the letters in question have not been produced and conclusively proved in the enquiry proceeding as because the said documents produced before the Supreme Court have not been produced before the enquiry officer on the ground that the records were not traceable. However, the enquiry officer in his report came to a prima facie conclusion that the documents in question are not genuine documents. In any event, these documents cannot be relied upon for the purpose of holding that for the post of Principal of the Mahila College, the Commission and the State of Bihar recommended for appointment of a lady teacher on the said post. As noticed above, it was not the case of the appellant in the first writ petition that a lady teacher was to be appointed rather the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court directing the Commission to consider the candidature of both male and female candidates for the post of Principal of the College was not challenged and the same attained its finality. Accordingly we hold that the post of Principal of the College has not to be held only by a lady candidate but a male could also be appointed on the said post.
20. In that view of the matter, without going any further, we do not think it proper to keep the matter pending.
21. Hence, this appeal, having no merit, is dismissed.