Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

1998 DIGILAW 1084 (SC)

Sumedha Tripathi (Ms. ) v. State Of Bihar

1998-09-04

A.P.MISRA, K.VENKATASWAMI, S.C.AGRAWAL

body1998
(1) THIS application has been filed by Shambhu Sharan Prasad who was Respondent 6 m Civil Appeal No. 306 of 1998 for recalling the order of this Court dated 19/1/1998 whereby this Court while allowing the said appeal has set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 27/1/1997 in LPA No. 13 62 of 1996 and has directed the College Service Commission to select a suitable lady candidate for appointment to the post of Principal of Bokaro Manila College (hereinafter referred to as "the College") and that if the appellant [Dr. (Ms.) Sumedha Tripathi] submits her application in this regard and it is found that she has crossed the maximum age prescribed for such appointment she may be granted relaxation in that regard. On the basis of the communication dated 17/11/1980 from Shri A.K. Bishwas, Joint Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Education Department,: to the Vice-Chancellor, Ranchi University, regarding sanction/creation of teaching posts in the College, the letter of the Deputy Registrar, Ranchi University, dated 15/3/1983 (correct date March 5, 1983) addressed to the Secretary of the College regarding continuance of the affiliation of the College and the requisition dated 20/3/1984 from the Governing Body of the College to the College Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") for selecting a person for appointing on the post of Principal of the College the Court has taken the view that the post of Principal of the College has to be held by a lady and the recommendation that had been made by the Commission whereby names of Respondents 6 and 7, who are males, had been recommended for appointment on the said post could not be upheld. (2) IN this application Respondent 6 has submitted that the copy of the letter dated 17/9/1980, filed by the appellant and on which reliance was placed by this Court, is not the correct copy of the letter which was actually sent by Shri A.K. Bishwas to the Vice-Chancellor, Ranchi University, and the original letter does not contain the word " Pradhanacharya" but contains the word "Pradhanacharva". In the application, it is also stated that the letter dated 5/3/1983 from the Deputy Registrar, Ranchi University, addressed to the Secretary of the College to which reference has been made by this Court does not exist and is a fabricated document. In the application, it is also stated that the letter dated 5/3/1983 from the Deputy Registrar, Ranchi University, addressed to the Secretary of the College to which reference has been made by this Court does not exist and is a fabricated document. The requisition dated 20/3/1984 from the Governing Body of the College to the Commission is also claimed to be a fabricated document. (3) BY order dated 3/8/1998 notice on the said application was issued to the Registrar, Acharya Vinoba Bhave University, which is now the successor of Ranchi University and the Registrar was directed to file a reply to the said application and produce before the Court original documents having a bearing on the matter. The State of Bihar was also directed to file original documents in its possession which are connected with the application and produce office copy of the letter dated 17/11/1980 addressed by A.K. Bishwas to the Registrar of Ranchi University. (4) IN pursuance of the said direction, an affidavit has been filed by Shri Misir Oraon, Registrar, Acharya Vinoba Bhave University. dated 1/9/1998. In the said affidavit it has been stated that the copy of the letter dated 17/11/1980 that was filed by the appellant is not a correct copy of the said letter which was received from the State. Government. It is also stated that copy of the filed by the appellant is not the correct copy of the said letter and the letter which was issued by the University on March 5, 1983 to the Secretary of Bokaro Mahila College related to grant of study leave to a teacher of the College and the copy of the said letter dated 5/3/1983 has been filed as Annexure C-2 to the said affidavit. Shri A. Sharan, appearing for the Registrar, Acharya Vinoba Bhave University, has placed before us the record of the University containing the original letter said to have been received from the State Government. (5) SHRI B.B. Singh, appearing for the State of Bihar and the Commission, states that he has got the original record of the Commission and he has placed before us the copy of the letter dated 17/11/1980 as contained in the record of the Commission which was received from the State Government. (5) SHRI B.B. Singh, appearing for the State of Bihar and the Commission, states that he has got the original record of the Commission and he has placed before us the copy of the letter dated 17/11/1980 as contained in the record of the Commission which was received from the State Government. (6) A comparison of the copy of the letter dated 17/11/1980 produced by Shri B.B. Singh from the record of the Commission and the original letter dated 17/11/1980 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 " Pradhanacharya". Moreover, the numericals in the original letter produced by Shri. A. Sharan are in Devanagari script, while the numericals in the copy produced by Shri Singh are in Roman script. On the reverse 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 5/3/1983, Shri L. Nageshwara Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the copy of the letter dated 5/3/1983 filed by the appellant bears the No. P/1325 while the copy of the letter dated 5/3/1983 fjiled as Amexure C-2 to the which means that they are two different documentts Shri L. Nageshware Rao has also invited our attention to the affidavit of Shri Satish Chandra Lal who was the Secretary of the College in 1983 dated 4/5/1998, wherein he has stated that_he received Letter No. P/1325 from the Deputy Registrar (I), Ranchi University. (7) 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 in enquiry into the genuineness of the documents aforementioned. are of the view that the High Court would be in a better position to have such an enquiry conducted. 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 19/1/1998 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 6. In view of these documents it must be held that the post of 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 6 and 7, who 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 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 enquiry 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 enquiry into the genuineness of the documents, it may have such enquiry 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. (8) I. A No. 3 filed by Respondent 6 is allowed in these terms.