JUDGMENT Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. National Institute for Visually Handicapped (hereinafter referred to as the “NIVH") was established on 04.01.1959. A very sensitive issue has been highlighted in the present Public Interest Litigation. This Court had taken cognizance of the news items published in daily edition of Hindustan Times as well as Times of India. The students of NIVH were protesting against the teachers and staff involved in molestation and sexual abuse of the inmates. It could never be imagined in any civilized society that teachers themselves would be involved in sexual harassment and abuse. It is a black spot on the entire teachers' community. Teachers and staff of an institution are torch-bearers for the specially challenged children. The children may be blind; but, they are required to be shown the light by the teachers and the ministerial staff. In order to stem the rot, we had issued mandatory directions on 29.08.2018. Respondent No. 1, i.e. Union of India, was directed to appoint a regular Director within a period of three weeks from the date of passing of the order to provide solace to the inmates. 2. On 29.08.2018, we had also ordered Mr. D. Senthil Pandian, Secretary, Agriculture, State of Uttarakhand, to hold an inquiry into the affairs of NIVH on urgent basis and to complete the same within 15 days. Mr. D. Senthil Pandian has submitted a Report in the Court in a sealed cover. It was opened in the presence of the parties. We have taken into consideration the comprehensive report prepared and tendered before us by Mr. D. Senthil Pandian. 3. On the next date of hearing, i.e. on 13.09.2018, Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 6/ Institution submitted that Sri Nachiketa Rout was appointed as the officiating Director and, since hewas on leave, Dr. Geetika Mathur was working as the officiating Director. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Asst. Solicitor General had undertaken that a regular Director shall be appointed within a period of one month from the date of passing of the order. 4. The fact of the matter is that, till date, regular Director has not been appointed. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Asst. Solicitor General has submitted that the earlier incumbent Mrs. Anuradha Dalmia is holding the lien on the present post. 5. Mr. Arvind Vashistha and Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal have submitted that the regularly appointed Director Mrs. 4. The fact of the matter is that, till date, regular Director has not been appointed. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Asst. Solicitor General has submitted that the earlier incumbent Mrs. Anuradha Dalmia is holding the lien on the present post. 5. Mr. Arvind Vashistha and Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal have submitted that the regularly appointed Director Mrs. Anuradha Dalmia would retire at the age of 60 years and, till then, no regular Director can be appointed. They also submitted, in unison, that there is no tenure prescribed for the post of Director. A specific question was put to Mr. Surendra Dhalwal, Asst. Professor, Clinical Psychology, whois present in Court, as to what is the tenure of the Director. He told the Court curtly that there is no tenure, but the appointment is till the age of superannuation. We have gone through the detailed Report tendered by Mr. D. Senthil Pandian. According to para 21 of the Report, the tenure of the Director is for a period of 5 years. Smt. Anuradha Dalmia was permitted to work for 12 years. Sri Surendra Dhalwal has told a lie in the open Court. It was never expected from a person holding the rank of Asst. Professor not to narrate and state correct facts to the Court. This action of Mr. Surendra Dhalwal, Asst. Professor, is condemnable. Moreover, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 6 have also not stated correct facts. They have twisted the facts. We do not know why this strange stand has been taken by respondent Nos. 1 & 6 contrary to law. The directions had been issued in larger public interest in order to safeguard the interest of the specially challenged children. We do not approve of the stand adopted by respondent Nos. 1 & 6. Thus, the stand taken by respondent Nos. 1 & 6 is contrary to law. There was no legal impediment/hurdle in appointing a regular Director at NIVH in order to salvage the situation. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 6, belatedly, has tried to wriggle out of this situation. The system would collapse if true facts are not presented before the courts of law. 6. 1 & 6 is contrary to law. There was no legal impediment/hurdle in appointing a regular Director at NIVH in order to salvage the situation. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 6, belatedly, has tried to wriggle out of this situation. The system would collapse if true facts are not presented before the courts of law. 6. Confronted with this situation, where we have been intentionally misled repeatedly, we have no alternative, but to issue the following directions: (i) Respondent No. 1 is directed to appoint a regular Director, NIVH, Dehradun, within a period of three weeks from today, failing which, the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, New Delhi, shall remain present in Court with records on the next date of listing. (ii) The Registry is directed to issue show-cause notice to Mr. Surendra Dhalwal, Asst. Professor, Clinical Psychology, NIVH, Dehradun, as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him for repeatedly misleading this Court and for concealing true facts from the Court, returnable on 25.10.2018. (iii) The parties be supplied with the copies of the Report prepared and tendered by Mr. D. Senthil Pandian within two days from today to do the needful and to file action taken reports on or before 25.10.2018. (iv) Respondent No. 1 is also directed to explain by filing a separate affidavit as to why the person, against whom insinuations have been made, was permitted to be retained as the Head of the Institution for 12 long years. 7. List this matter on 25.10.2018. 8. There shall be a direction to the newspaper reporters reporting the matters of the High Court not to publish any news-item without verifying the contents as per the orders passed by the Court. No oral observation made during the submissions/interactive session shall be published henceforth.