- (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.;