il Appeal No 861 of 1975
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 1 3 1975 of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench in writ petition No 405 of 1974 AK Sen and SK Bisaria for the appellant
CP Lal for respondents 1 3
Yogeshwar Prasad and RN Trivedi for respondents
No 8
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH J
This appeal by special leave is di rected against the judgment and order dated March 31 1975 of Lucknow Bench of 65 the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition No 405 of 1974 filed by the appellant challenging the recommen dation made by a Selection Committee of the Lucknow Univer sity hereinafter referred to as the University  for appointment of respondent No 8 as Professor of Anthropology in the Faculty of Arts of the University
The facts giving rise to this appeal are towards the end of the year 1973 the University put up an advertisement inviting applications from candidates possessing the follow ing qualifications to fill up a vacant post of Professor of Anthropology  Essential First or high second class Master s degree and Doctorate in the subject con cerned with a good academic record experience of teaching post graduate classes not less than 7 years andor having conducted and successfully guided research work for 7 year s in recognised institution and having published work of high standard in the subject concerned
 Preferential High academic distinctions
 The appellant and respondent No 8 were the only two candidates who applied for the post in response to the advertisement
Their respective qualifications are as set out hereunder  SNo
Name Age Qualifications  Experience 1
Dr G Sarana 38 years HS U P Bd 1949 1 Div
Head of Deptt
Inter BHU 1951 1 Div
of Anthropology BA LU 1953 I Div
Karnatak University MA L U 1965 I Div
Dharwar
Ph D Harvard U 1966
Published 28 research papers and 3 books
Worked as  1 Temp
Lecturer in Anthro pology LU July 1955 April 1962
2 Lecturer in Anthropol ogy Punjab U April August 1962
3 Visiting Lecturer Univ
of California at Santa Barbara July 1965 June 1966
4 Karnatak Univer sity September 1966 upto date as Reader and since 27 June 1970 as Profes sor
66 SNo
Name Age Qualifications  Experience 2Dr
KS Mathur 44 years HS U P Bd 1944 1 Divn
Reader and Head of the Inter U P Bd 1946 I Divn
Deptt
of Anthropology B Com L U 1950 I Divn
Lucknow University
PhD Australian National U 1960
Published several research papers Worked as 1 Lecturer in Anthropology LU 1951 64
2Reader in Anthropology LU 1964 continuing 3 Sociologist National Council of Appl
Economic Research New Delhi March  September 1960
On February 27 1974 a Selection Committee consisting of Shri AKK Mustafi Vice Chancellor of the University Dr KN Shukla Dean Faculty of Arts and Professor  Head of the Department of Hindi of the University and three experts viz Dr SC Dube Dr SRK Chopra and Dr TB Mayak respondents 3 4 5 6 and 7 respectively met to interview the candidates and to make their recommendation to the Executive Council of the University
After interviewing the aforesaid two candidates the Selection Committee re solved to recommend respondent No 8 herein for appointment to the aforesaid post of Professor of Anthropology
On coming to know of the recommendation the appellant filed the aforesaid petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the recommendation mainly on the ground that two out of the aforesaid three experts viz Dr SC Dube and Dr SRK Chopra were biased against him and in favour of respondent No 8
It was alleged by the appel lant that the respondent had close relations with the afore said two
experts as he was instrumental in obtaining many remunerative assignments for them
It was
further averred by the appellant that whenever Dr Dube visited Lucknow he stayed with respondent No 8
It was also averred by the appellant that Dr Chopra had strained relations with him on account of straight election contest between him and the latter for the office of the President of Anthropology Section of the Indian Science Congress for 19574
The appellant further averred that in 1968 when he was serving in the Punjab University as a Lecturer in the Department of Anthropology headed by Dr Chopra the latter stubbornly opposed his application for leave to avail of the offer of fellowship from Harvard University and stopped forwarding his salary bills to the Executive Council with the ulterior object of depriving him of the opportunity to attain higher academic qualification and thereby better his future pros pects with the result that he was compelled to resign his job and surrender three months  salary in lieu of notice to avail of the offer
67 The petition was vigorously contested by respondent No 8
On consideration of the material placed before it the High Court however dismissed the application holding that though respondent No 8 was the head of the department of Anthropology he was not the only person responsible for bestowing various assignments either on Dr Dube or on Dr Chopra and that it was the Executive Council and the Academic Council which were responsible for giving those assignments to Dr Dube and Dr Chopra
It was further held by the High Court that there was nothing unusual in Dr Dube and Dr Chopra s knowing and enjoying the hospitality of respondent No 8
The fact that the appellant had an elec tion contest with Dr Chopra was also in the opinion of the High Court of no significance as such like contests were very common and  it could not be said that Dr Chopra had developed such a degree of ill will and hostility against the appellant for the latter s standing as a candidate against him so as to render him incapable of acting impar tially when the task of selecting the best candidate was assigned to him and that it was not possible to
presume that Dr Dube and Dr Chopra were in a position to influence the decision of the entire Selection Committee by injection bias in the minds of the other members
The High Court finally held that from the facts relied upon by the appel lant bias could not be spelt out
In arriving at its decision the High Court relied upon the following observa tions made by Frank J of the United States of America in re Linahan1 If however bias and partiality be defined to mean the total absence of preconceptions in the
mind of the Judge then no one has ever had a fair triaL and no one ever will
The human mind even at infancy is no blank piece of paper
We are born with predispositions and the processes of education formal and informal create attitudes which precede reasoning in particular instances and which therefore by definition are preju dices
 The High Court also held that the appellant having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Selection Committee he could not be permitted to turn round and denounce the con stitution of the Committee
Counsel for the parties have reiterated before us the contentions raised on behalf of their clients before the High Court
In addition it has been contended by counsel for respondent No 8 that the impugned recommendation being in the nature of an interlocutory proceeding neither the writ petition nor the appeal arising therefrom could be maintained
It is needless to emphasize that the principles of natural justice which are meant to prevent miscarriage of justice are also applicable to domestic enquiries and admin istrative proceedings See AK Karipak vs Union of India2
It cannot also be disputed that one of the funda mental principles of natural justice is that in case of quasi judicial proceedings the authority empowered to decide the dispute t 1943 138F 2nd 650 at 652
2 1970 1 SCR 457 AIR 1970 SC 150
68 between opposing parties must be one without bias by which is meant an operative prejudice whether conscious or uncon scious towards one side or the other in the dispute
See Nageswara Rao vs
AP State Road Transport Corporation1 and Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao v State of AP2
It would be advantageous at this stage to refer to the following observations made by this Court in Manak Lal vs Prem Chand3
Every member of a tribunal that sits to try issues in judicial or quasi judical proceedings must be able to act
judicially and the essence of judicial decisions and judicial administration is that judges should be able to act impartially objectively and without any bias
In such cases the test is not whether in fact a bias has affected the judgment the test always is and must be wheth er a litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias attributable to a member of the tribunal might have operated against him in the final decision of the tribunal
It is in this sensethat it is often said that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done Again as held by this Court in A K Karipak s case supra reiterated in section Parthasarthi vs State of Andhra Pradesh4 and followed by the High Court of Jarainu  Kashmir in Farooq Ahmed Pandey and Ors
vs Principal Regional Engineering College  Anr5 the real question is not whether a member of an administrative Board while exercising quasi judicial powers or discharging quasi judicial functions was biased for it is difficult to prove the mind of a person
What has to be seen is whether there is a reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased
In decid ing the question of bias human probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct have to be taken into consideration
In a group deliberation and decision like that of a Selection Board the mem bers do not function as computers
Each member of the group or board is bound to influence the oth ers more so if the member concerned is a person with special knowledge
His bias is likely to operate in a subtle manner
At page 156 of Principles of AdministratiVe Law by JAG Griffith and H Street Fourth Edition the position with regard to bias is aptly and succinctly stated as follows  The prohibition of bias strikes against factors which may improperly influence a judge in deciding in favour of one party
The first of the three disabling types of bias is bias on the sub ject matter
Only rarely will this bias invalidate proceedings
A mere general interest in the general object to be pursued would not disqualify said Field J holding that a magistrate who sub scribed to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was not thereby disabed 1 1959 Supp 1 SCR 319 AIR 1959 SC 308
2  3  4 5 69 from trying a charge brought by that body of cruel ty to a horse
There must be some direct connec tion with the litigation
If there is such preju dice on the subject matter that the court has reached fixed and unalterable conclusions not founded on reason or understanding so that there is not a fair hearing that is bias of which the courts wilt take account as where a justice an nounced his intention of convicting anyone coming before him on a charge of supplying liquor after the permitted hours   
Secondly a pecuniary interest however slight will disqualify even though it is not proved that the decision is in any way affected
The third type of bias is personal bias
A Judge may be a relative friend or business associ ate of a party or he may be personally hostile as a result of events happening either before or during the course of a trial
The courts have not been consistent in laying down when bias of this type will
invalidate a hearing
The House of Lords in Frome United Brewering vs Bath Justices1 approved an earlier test of whether there is a real likelihood of bias
 the House of Lords has since approved a dictum of Lord Hewart that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done al though it did not mention another test suggested by him in the same judgment Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of jus tice
 At page 225 of his Treatise on Judicial Review of Administrative Action Third Edition Prof SA De Smith has stated as follows with regard to Reports and Preliminary decisions  The case law on the point is thin but on principle it would seem that where a report or determination lacking final effect may nevertheless have a seriously judicial effect on the legally protected interests of individuals eg when it is a necessary prerequisite of a final order the person making the report or preliminary decision must not be affected by interest or likelihood of bias
 From the above discussion it clearly follows that what has to be seen in a case where there is an allegation of bias in respect of a member of an administrative Board or body is whether there is a reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased
In other words whether there is substantial possibility of bias animating the mind of the member against the aggrieved party
We do not however consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of thereasonableness of bias or real likelihood or bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the 1 70 interview raise even his little finger against the consti tution
of the Selection Committee
He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the Committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it
Having done so it is not
now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the Committee
This view gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal s case Supra where in more or less similar circumstances it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him
The following observations made therein are worth quoting It seems dear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report he adopted the device of raising the present technical point
 It is also difficult to understand how the writ petition or for that matter the present appeal before us is maintain able when the recommenlation of the Selection Committee has still to be scrutinzed by the Excutive Council of the Uni versity and either accepted or rejected by t and other remedies by way of representation to
the Executive Council and an application for reference of the matter under section 68 of the Uttar Pradesh Universities Reenactment and Amendment Act 1974 0 the Chancellor are still open to the appellant and have not been
exmusted
For the foregoing reasons we find ourselves unable to allow the appeal
In the result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances of the case with out any order as to costs
MR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant and respondent No 8 applied for the vacant post of Professor of Anthropology in the Faculty of Arts in answer to an advertisement put up by the Lucknow University
A selection committee of five persons including three experts interviewed them and recommended respondent No 8 for the post
The appellant s writ petition challeng ing the recommendation was dismissed by the High Court
The appellant contended before this Court that two of the expert members of the selection committee were unduly biased against him and in favour of respondent No 8
The appeal was contested on two grounds
Firstly that by submitting to the jurisdiction of the selection committee the appellant had waived his right to denounce its constitution and sec ondly that the impugned recommendation being an interlocu tory proceeding against which remedies were available the writ petition was not maintainable
Dismissing the appeal the Court HELD 1
Despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant factshe seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it Having done so it is no now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee70 A B Manak Lal vs Prem Chand  1957 SC 425 applied
Linahan 650 A K Karipak vs Union of India  Nageshwar Rao vs State of AP  1959 SC 1376 section Partha rarathi vs State of Andhra Pradesh  Farooq Ahmad Bandey and Ors
vs Principal Regional Engineering College  Anr
1975 IK LR 427 Principles of Adminis trative Law by IAG Griffith and H Street 4th edition and Judicial Review of Administrative Action  3rd Edition by Prof SA De Smith referred to 2
The recommendation of the selection committee has still to be scrutinised by the Executive Council of the University and either accepted or rejected by and other remedies by way of representation to the executive council and an application for reference of the matter under section 68 of the Uttar Pradesh Universities Reenactment and Amendment Act 1974 to the Chance or are till open to the appellant and have not been exhausted The writ petition or he present appeal before us is not maintainable
70 C D