Case: G. Sarana Vs. University of Lucknow and Others

This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated March 31, 1975 of Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition No. 405 of 1974 filed by the appellant challenging the recommendation made by a Selection Committee of the Lucknow University (hereinafter referred to as the University) for appointment of respondent No. 8 as Professor of Anthropology in the Faculty of Arts of thefacts 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 following qualifications to fill up a vacant post of Professor ofFirst or high second class Masters degree and Doctorate in the subject concerned with a good academic record, experience of teaching post-graduate classes not less than 7 years and/or having conducted and successfully guided research work for 7 years 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:--S. No. Name Age Qualifications &Experience1. Dr. G. Sarana, 38 years H.S. (U. P. Bd) 1949-1 D iv.Head of Deptt. Inter (B.H.U.) 1951-1 Div.of Anthropology, B.A. (L.U.) 1953-I Div.Karnatak University, M.A. (L. U.) 1965-I Div.Dharwar. Ph. D. (Harvard (U) 1966.Published 28 research papersand 3 books.Worked as:-(1) Temp. Lecturer in Anthro-pology L.U. July, 1955-April, 1962.(2) Lecturer in Anthropology Punjab U-April-August,1962.(3) Visiting Lecturer-Univ.of California at SantaBarbara-July 1965-June1966.(4) Karnatak University(September 1966 uptodate as Reader and since27 June 1970) as Professor.S.No. Name Age Qualifications &Experience2.Dr.K.S. Mathur, 44 years H.S. (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. Ph.D. (Australian National U)1960.Published several researchpapers,Worked as:-(1) Lecturer in AnthropologyL.U.- 1951-64.(2)Reader in AnthropologyL.U. - 1964-continuing(3) Sociologist- NationalCouncil of Appl . EconomicResearch, New Delhi MarchSeptember-1960.On February 27, 1974, , a Selection Committee consisting of Shri A.K.K. Mustafi, Vice-Chancellor of t he University, Dr. K.N. Shukla, Dean, Faculty of Arts and Professor &Head of the Department of Hindi of the University, and three experts viz., Dr. S.C. Dube, Dr. S.R.K. Chopra and Dr. T.B. 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 resolved to recommend respondent No. 8 herein for appointment to the aforesaid post of Professor ofcoming 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. S.C. Dube and Dr. S.R.K. Chopra were biased against him and in favour of respondent No. 8. It was alleged by the appellant that the respondent had close relations with the aforesaid 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 prospects 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.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. Chopras knowing and enjoying the hospitality of respondent No. 8. The fact that the appellant had an election 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 latters standing as a candidate against hi m so as to render him incapable of acting impartially 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 appellant, bias could not be spelt out. In arriving at its decision, the High Court relied upon the following observations made by Frank, J. of the United States of America in re. Linahan.([1943], 138F. 2nd 6 50 athowever, "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, areHigh 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 constitution of the Committee.

Reasoning: 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 the reasonableness 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 interview raise even his little finger against the constitution. 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 Lals 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 againstis also difficult to understand how the writ petition or for that matter the present appeal before us is maintainable when the recommenlation of the Selection Committee has still to be scrutinzed 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, the Chancellor are still open to the appellant and have not been exmusted.