WA 17/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE IA ANSARI THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AC UPADHYAY IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARU NACHAL PRADESH) WRIT APPEAL NO. 17 of 2011 1. Sri Ganesh Kurmi, S/O Sri Lakhi Charan Kurmi, Resident of Niz Modarkhat Gaon, P.O. Alimur(Dikom), P.S. Lahoal, District-Dibrugarh, Assam. & &.. & Appellant - Vs - 1. The State of Assam, Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department, Dispur, Assam. 2. The Inspector of Schools, Dibrugarh District Circle, Dibrugarh, Assam. 3. The Chairman of Selection Committee, represented by the Deputy Commissioner/ Additional Commissioner, Dibrugarh, Assam. 4. The School Management Committee, Modarkhat S.R.C. H.S. School, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its President. 5. Sri Suresh Kumar, President, School Management Committee, Modarkhat S.R.C. H.S. School, Dibrugarh, Assam. 6. The Principal-cum-Member Secretary, Modarkhat S.R.C. H.S. School, Dibrugarh, Assam. 7. Sri Satyen Kumar Gogoi, S/O Sri Sarat Chandra Gogoi, Resident of Modarkhat Hatkhula, Dihingin Gaon, P.O. & P.S. Lahoal, District-Dibrugarh, Assam. & &.. & Respondents BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. C. UPADHYAY For the appellant : Mr. P.J. Saikia, Advocate, Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate, Ms. J. Saikia, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. V.M. Thomas, Advocate, Ms. B. Goyal, Govt. Advocate. Date of hearing : 19.01.2011 Date of delivery of Judgment & order : 17.02.2011 JUDGMENT & ORDER (A.C. Upadhyay, J) Aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 15.12.2010, passed in W P(C) No.5816 of 2010, the respondent No.7, in the writ petition, who is appellan t herein, has preferred this appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel, for the ap pellant, Mr. V.M. Thomas, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 an d 2, and Ms B. Goyal, learned Govt. Advocate, representing the respondent No.3. 3. The material facts, leading to the filing of this appeal, may, in brief, be set out as under: Pursuant to the Notification, issued by the Commissioner & Se cretary, Govt. of Assam, Department of Education (Secondary), on 10.06.2010, inv iting applications from eligible candidates, for engagement of additional teache rs on contractual basis, the appellant herein (respondent No-7 in the writ petit ion) had applied for the post of General Science teacher. Together with the appe llant, many others including the writ petitioner had also applied for the post. Accordingly, selection process was carried out. On completion of the selection p rocess, the appellant was selected in the interview by the Selection Committee. Consequently, the appellant was appointed to the said post, for the period upto 31.03.2011, vide appointment letter, dated 05.08.2010, issued by the respondent No.6. Accordingly, the appellant joined the said post and continued to serve. 4. The writ petitioner, respondent No.7 herein, who was unsuccessfu l in the said selection process, filed the aforesaid writ petition, challenging the validity of the selection process, on the ground that respondent No.5, who h appens to be the brother of the present appellant, had participated in the selec tion process as a member of the Selection Committee. It also, admittedly, surfac ed in the writ proceeding that in the selection process, while awarding marks in the category of ’communication skill’, in the interview, the respondent No.5 ha d awarded to the present appellant 19 marks out of 20, whereas respondent No.7 ( the writ petitioner), who had also appeared in the said interview, was awarded o nly 3 marks in the same category. Similarly, the appellant was awarded 52 marks out of the total 70 marks set apart for the interview, whereas the respondent No .7 (the writ petitioner) was awarded only 27 marks. 5. The learned single Judge, by the impugned order, set aside the appointment, dated 05.08.2010, of the appellant with further directions to the r espondent State department to conduct fresh selection on the basis of the candid atures, which it has already accepted, and to complete the exercise of fresh sel ection as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within 15.1.2011. It was furthe r directed by the learned single Judge that in the fresh selection process, resp ondent No.5 would completely disassociate himself and shall, in no way, try to i nfluence other members of the Selection Committee. 6. Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant, fervently su bmitted that since the Selection Committee was constituted as per the Notificati on, dated 10.06.2010, issued by the Commissioner & Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Ed ucation (Elementary & Secondary) Department, there was no scope for the responde nt No.5 to modify the constitution of the Selection Committee inasmuch as the no tification aforesaid did not confer any power on the State respondents, particul arly, respondent No.5, to make any change in the constitution of the Selection C ommittee. Further, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the writ pet itioner, who had participated in the interview without any protest, cannot, on completion of the selection process, be permitted to turn around to challenge t he constitution of the Selection Committee. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that in the ’communication skill’ category, one Sri Mrityunjoy Baruah has obtained second hi ghest marks of 10 out of 20, and if the marks, obtained by the appellant in the said ’communication skill’ category is reduced to 10 from 19, then, also, the ma rks of the appellant would be higher than that of the respondent No.7 (writ peti tioner). 8. It may be noticed here that the President of the School Managing Committee was notified as a member of the Selection Committee. In such capacity , respondent No.5, the brother of appellant, became a member of the Selection Co mmittee. 9. Now, the question, which may arise for consideration is what wou ld a member of a Selection Committee do, when one of the candidates, participati ng in the selection process, is his own brother? In such a situation, can the me mber of the Committee go ahead with the selection process to award highest marks to his brother in the subject category entrusted to him for evaluation on the p retext that there is no definite direction to replace him by another person as a member or should he desist himself from participating as a selector or as one o f the selectors and inform the Government accordingly? To answer the question, posed above, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court, in Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana: 1985(4) SCC 417, wher ein the fundamental principle of jurisprudence has been enunciated to be that no man can be a judge in his own cause and that if there is a reasonable likelih ood of bias, it is in accordance with natural justice and common-sense that the justice likely to be so biased should be incapacitated from sitting. The basic principle underlying this rule, as discussed in Ashok Kumar Yadav(supra), revea ls that justice must not only be done, but must also appear to have been done a nd this rule has received wide recognition in several decisions of the Supreme C ourt. It is also important to note that this rule is not confined to cases, wher e judicial power stricto sensu is exercised. It is appropriately extended to all cases, where an independent mind has to be applied to arrive at a fair and just decision between the rival claims of parties. Justice is not the function of th e Courts alone; it is also the duty of all those, who are expected to decide fai rly between contending parties. 10. In Ashok Kumar Yadav(supra), the Supreme Court, analyzing its ea rlier decision, reported in A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India : AIR 1970 SC 150, o bserved as follows: What happened in this case was that one Naquishbund, the acting Chief Conservat or of Forests, Jammu and Kashmir was a member of the Selection Board which had b een set up to select officer to the Indian Forest Service from those serving in the Forest Department of Jammu and Kashimr. Naquisbund who was a member of the S election Board was also on of the candidates for selection to the Indian Forest Service. He did not sit on the Selection Board at the time when his name was con sidered for selection but he did sit on the Selection Board and participated in the deliberations when the names of his rival officers were considered for selec tion and took part in the deliberations of the Selection Board while preparing t he list of the selected candidates in order of preference. This Court held that the presence of Naquishbund vitiated the selection on the ground that there was reasonable likelihood of bias affecting the process of selection. Hedge, J. Spea king on behalf of the Court countered the argument that Naquishbund did not take part in the deliberations of the Selection Board when his name was considered, by saying: but then the very fact that he was a member of the Selection Board must have it s own impact on the decision of the Selection Board. Further, admittedly, he par ticipated in the deliberations of the Selection Board when the claims of his riv als & & & & &were considered. He was also party to the preparation of the list of s ected candidates in order of preference. At every stage of his participation in the deliberation of the selection board, there was a conflict between his intere st and duty & & The real qu3estion is not whether he was biased. It is difficult t o prove the state of mind of a person. Therefore that we have to see is whether there is reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased & .There must be a reasonable likelihood of bias. In deciding the question of bias we have to take into consideration human probabilities and ordinary course of h uman conduct. This Court emphasized that it was not necessary to establish bias but it was suf ficient to invalidate the selection process if it could be shown that there was reasonable likelihood of bias. The likelihood of bias may arise on account of pr oprietary interest or on account of personal reasons, such as, hostility to one party or personal friendship or family relationship with the other. Where reason able likelihood of bias is alleged on the ground of relationship, the question w ould always be as to how close is the degree of relationship or in other words, is the nearness of relationship so great as to give rise to reasonable apprehens ion of bias on the part of the authority making the selection. 11. When we look into the procedure notified for selection of the ca ndidates in the instant case, it appears that the selection of eligible candidat es was required to be made strictly in order of merit, based on percentage of ma rks, secured by the candidates, in the concerned College or University examinati ons, which was to be followed by oral interview. The Selection Committee assesse d the merit of the appellant in terms of the procedure so prescribed for the pur pose. Admittedly, one of the members of the Selection Committee, i.e., responden t No.5, was the brother of the appellant. The appellant, apart from securing hig hest marks in the interview, was awarded 1st position in the selection list. 12. In Ashok Kumar Yadav(supra), the Supreme Court emphasized, in th e following words, on the object of withdrawing from the entire selection proces s by the member, whose close relation is a candidate in the interview: 18. We must straightway point out that A.K. Kraipak’s case (AIR 1970 SC 150) is a landmark in the development of administrative law and it has contributed in a large measure to the strengthening of the rule of law in this country. We would not like to whittle down in the slightest measure the vital principle laid down in this decision which has nourished the roots of the rule of law and injected justice and fair play into legality. There can be no doubt that if a selection c ommittee is constituted for the purpose of selecting candidates on merits and on e of the members of the Selection Committee is closely related to a candidate ap pearing for the selection, it would not be enough for such member merely to with draw from participation in the interview of the candidate related to him but he must withdraw altogether from the entire selection process and ask the authoriti es to nominate another person in his place on the selection committee, because o therwise all the selections made would be vitiated on account of reasonable like lihood of bias affecting the process of selection. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the writ petiti oner, who had participated in the selection process, could not have been allowed to turn around to challenge the constitution of the Selection Committee after h e had failed to get selected. Now, it is required to be seen whether the decisio n of the Supreme Court, in (i) Madan Lal and Ors. Vs. State of J and K and Ors: (1995) 3 SCC 486, (ii)Dhananjay Malik and Ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. : (2008) 4 SCC 171 and (iii)Om Prakash Shukla v Akhilesh Kumar Shukla : 1986 Supp SCC 285, on the above context would apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. In Madan Lal and Ors. Vs. State of J and K & Ors(supra), Supreme Court held that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the int erview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and, subsequently, contend that the process of interview wa s unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. Likewise, in t he judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhananjay Malik and Ors. Vs. State of Uttara nchal and Ors.(supra), it has been observed that having unsuccessfully partic ipated in the process of selection without any demur, a candidate can not be per mitted to challenge the selection criteria. If at all, the petitioner had any va lid objection to make, either he ought to have challenged the advertisement and selection process, without participating in it or should have submitted objectio n before the concerned authority, regarding such irregular selection of candidat es for the viva-voce test. Yet again, in the case of Om Prakash Shukla v Akhiles h Kumar Shukla : 1986 Supp SCC 285, the Supreme Court observed that when the pe titioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he w ould not succeed in the examination, he filed a petition challenging the said ex amination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitione r. When there is a specific allegation that the bias has affected th e decision of the selection Committee, and when a litigant could reasonably appr ehend that a bias attributable might have operated against him in the final deci sion, no analogy or correlation can, in the instant case, be drawn from the abo ve decisions to downgrade the challenge made by the writ petitioner, as a calcul ated chance , after having participated without any demur, to challenge the cons titution of the selection committee, after having failed in the selection proces s. In our view, for the above reason ,in the facts and circumstances of the pr esent case, the observations made by the Supreme Court, in (i)Madan Lal and Ors. Vs. State of J and K and Ors: (supra), (ii)Dhananjay Malik and Ors. Vs. State o f Uttaranchal and Ors. (supra) Om Prakash Shukla v Akhilesh Kumar Shukla (supra) , are not applicable. 15. According to us, the law laid by the Supreme Court, in Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra), is based on the principle of natural justice that no one should b e made a judge in his own cause i.e.’ Nemo in propria causa judex , esse debet’. It is popularly known as the rule against bias. It is the minimal requirement o f natural justice that the authority, giving decision, must be composed of impar tial persons acting fairly, without prejudice and bias. Bias means an operative prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious, as a result of some preconceived o pinion or predisposition, in relation to a party or an issue. 16. The rule against bias strikes against those factors, which may i mproperly influence a decision in a particular case. This rule is based on the premises that it is against human psychology to decide a case against his own i nterest. The basic objective of this rule is to ensure public confidence in the impartiality of the administrative and adjudicatory process, for, as observed by Lord Hewart CJ, in R V Sussex (1924)1KB 256, justice should not only be done, but also manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done. 17. In order to determine presence of personal bias, a Court may res ort to two kinds of tests: (i) Reasonable suspicion of bias, where Cou rt will look mainly to outward appearance. (ii) Real likelihood of bias: 18. In both the situations cited above, the court would see whether there is reasonable ground for believing that the deciding officer was likely t o be biased, as it is very difficult to prove a person’s state of mind. In the case of Jiwan K. Lohia v. Durga Dutt Lohia : (1992) 1 SCC 56, the Supreme Court observed that with regard to bias, the test to be applied is not whether, in fact, the bias has affected the judgment, but whether a litig ant could reasonably apprehend that a bias, attributable, might have operated ag ainst him in the final decision. Therefore, the real test for likelihood of bias is whether a reasonable person, in possession of relevant information, would ha ve thought that bias was likely and whether the authority concerned was likely t o be disposed to decide a matter in a particular manner. 19. The reason is plain enough as Lord Denning said, in the Discipl ine Of Law (1982)pg.87, said Justice must be rooted in the confidence and the confidence is destroyed when right minded people go away thinking that the judg e is biased 20. Though learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no chall enge was made in respect of participation by the brother of the appellant, as a member of the Selection Committee, the fact remains that the confidence of the p ublic and transparency in the matter of selection of candidates in an open inter view is of paramount consideration. Such a manner of conducting a selection proc ess as has been done in the present case, neither can be ignored nor can it be j ustified to be appropriate. 21. In view of the above discussion, no analogy or correlati on can, in the instant case, be drawn to relegate the challenge made by the wr it petitioner, as a calculated chance taken by a candidate and, then, turning ar ound to challenge the constitution of the selection committee after having faile d in the selection process. 22. For the reasons noted above, it was indispensable, on the part o f the respondent No.5, as a conscientious member of the Selection Committee to i nform the authority concerned about the participation of his own brother in the selection process, as a candidate, when he himself was a member of the Selection Committee. The respondent No.5 ought to have disassociated himself from the pro cess of evaluating merit of the appellant in the interview. The public confidenc e, in the matter of selection in a competitive interview, cannot be ignored on t he ground that respondent No.5 was duty bound to participate in the selection as a member of the Committee in terms of the Govt. notification. 23. As a matter of fact, it is not the question of equalizing and/or normalizing the highest marks awarded to a candidate in a selection test by red ucing the marks secured by him, when the fairness is under challenge and biasnes s is conspicuous. The question is of fair play and transparency in the matter of selection of candidates in such examinations. The State Department shall have t o act according to certain established healthy norms and standards, which should not be discriminatory and irrational. Fairness, reasonableness and transparency are the pillars on which rest the edifice of good governance. It is expected, a nd quite reasonably, that the members of a Selection Committee do not sit to int erview their own kith and kin in a competitive examination. Even if respondent N o.5 was notified as a member of the State Level Selection Committee, it was his duty to inform the authority concerned about the participation of his brother in the said selection process. By doing so, he ought to have disassociated himself from the process of selection. Unfortunately, as a responsible member of the Se lection Committee, respondent No.5 could not rise to the occasion to do the need ful and, thus, could not avoid, and must not be allowed to avoid, the allegation of lack of transparency in the selection process. 24. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances discussed above, we do not, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kum ar Yadav (supra), find any illegality in the impugned order, dated 15.12.2010, p assed by the learned single Judge. No interference with the impugned order is, t herefore, warranted in this appeal. The appeal shall accordingly stand dismissed . 25. However, we pass no order as to costs.