JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present six mandamus appeals are taken up together for hearing in view of those having arisen out of several orders passed by a learned Single Judge in a single writ petition, bearing WP No. 271 of 2016 (Akshay Pant v. Union of India and others).

2. Three of the appeals have been preferred by the Lieutenant Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and the Secretary (Education), Andaman and Nicobar Administration against orders dated August 09, 2018, August 16, 2018 and August 20, 2018. The other three appeals have been preferred by Dr. Utpal Sharma, against the same three orders. Dr. Sharma was the private respondent in the said writ petition.

3. The writ petition was filed in the form of a public interest litigation, seeking a writ of quo warranto. The present respondent No. 1, namely, Akshay Pant, preferred the said writ petition, challenging the appointment and functioning of Dr. Utpal Sharma as the Principal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Institute of Technology, Pahargaon, Port Blair. As per the respondent No. 1 (the petitioner in the writ petition), Dr. Sharma had produced fake certificates to be appointed to the said post of Principal and had no authority to continue in the said post.

4. The learned Single Judge, while passing the first of the impugned orders, dated August 09, 2018, proceeded from the inception on the premise that the document annexed at page 36 of the writ petition appeared to be fraudulent. The reason behind such observation was, according to the learned Single Judge, that the date of issuance of the certificate in question was sometime in the year 1974, whereas it pertained to an examination held in the month of May 1983. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the writ petition, paragraph 23 of the affidavit-in-opposition used by the respondent No. 8 (Dr. Utpal Sharma) as well as paragraph 13 of the last mentioned affidavit, according to the learned Single Judge, indicated that the pass certificate relating to the B.E. examination of Dr. Sharma did not appear to be genuine. The learned Judge went on to find that although a copy of a letter from the Controller of Examination of Osmania University, which had conferred the B.E. Degree on Dr. Sharma, was produced, the said letter was of recent vintage and could not be said to be contemporaneous with the issuance of the certificate. Accordingly, the respondent No. 8 in the writ petition was held not to have the basic qualification to be appointed as a Principal of the Polytechnic, which was later merged in and upgraded as an Institute of Technology.

5. It was observed in the order dated August 09, 2018 that upgrading the respondent No. 8 therein along with the institute was wholly illegal. The Union of India and the Administration were given one more chance to correct their "arbitrary steps in showing undue favour to the respondent No. 8". Certain other observations were made against the Administration and time was granted to the respondents until the next Circuit to come back with instructions as to how quickly they could initiate a process of selection of a duly qualified person as Principal of the upgraded institute, naturally after cancelling the appointment of the present incumbent/respondent No. 8 as Principal. In case such selection was made, it was clarified that nothing in the final order which was proposed by the learned Single Judge to be passed would prevent the respondent No. 8 from competing for the said post and for participating in the selection process if he could show genuine qualifications including mark sheets and pass certificates which would establish beyond doubt that he acquired the qualifications necessary for the post. The writ petition was directed to appear for further consideration before the next Circuit.

6. The learned Single Judge held that the order would not prevent the official respondents from ascertaining whether the private respondent No. 8