1999 Supreme(SC) 15

1999(1) Supreme 160
Supreme Court of India
(From Orissa High Court)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar & R.C. Lahoti, JJ.
Utkal University etc. -Appellants
versus
Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3236 of 1995
With
C.A. No. 3237 of 1995
Decided on 7-1-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant in C.A.No. 3236/95 : Vinoo Bhagat, Advocate.
For the Appellant in C.A.No. 3237/95 : Ranjit Kumar, and Ms. Anu Mohla, Advocates.
For the Respondents : A.P. Medh, Advocate (NP).

Important points
(1) When experts are appointed to the Committee of Selection, the selection should not be light set aside on allegation of bias unless there is adequate material which would indicate a strong likelyhood of bias or show that any particular member of Selection Committee had direct personal interest in appointing any particular candidate.
(2) Where a candidate did not possess Doctoral Degree upto last date of submission of application for post of Reader, but he obtained Degree before interview grievance could not be raised for not giving credit to the decree at interview.

Headnote:Service Law-Selection for post of Reader-Utkal University-Post of Reader in Oriya-Unsuccessful candidate change to selection-Allega­tion that one of members of Selection Committee biased in favour of selected candidate as that member was in editorial board of magazine to which selected candidate was editor-Further grievance that peti­tioner unsuccessful candidate acquire Doctoral decree prior to inter­view which was not given credit to-High Court accepting pleas set aside selection-Not justifiable-Upto date of submission of applica­tion he had not acquired Doctoral decree-Nothing wrong in Selection Committee not taking this qualification into account-Factum of asso­ciation of one of Selection Committee members known to petitioner throughout but no objection raised-Amounted to waiver of objection - No allegation of personal relationship - Selection of suc­­cessful candidate was purely on merit - No personal interest in ap­pointing any particular candidate -Selection could not lightly be set aside - High Court’s order set aside.

       Held : Upto the last date of submitting applications under the said advertisement, the first respondent had not obtained the qualifi­cation of a D. Litt degree. He had obtained this qualification, howev­er, prior to the interview. Therefore, there would have been nothing wrong in the Selection Committee not taking this qualification into account. What is, however, important is that the record does not show whether the Selection Committee, in fact, gave or did not give credit for this qualification. What is more important, there is no reason to hold that if any additional marks were to be given to the first re­spondent for this qualification, he would be selected. His name does not figure in the list of candidates selected by the Selection Commit­tee. Only two persons were selected out of 23 candidates who were interviewed. This contention, therefore, cannot be relied upon for the purpose of invalidating the selection of Dr. Surendranath Dash. (Paras 6 and 7)

       The University has rightly pointed out that the original writ petition does not disclose any legal injury to the original petitioner/present first respondent, because there is no reason to come to a conclusion that he would have been selected even if all his contentions in the writ petition were accepted. The first res­pondent stands more in the position of a meddlesome interloper than a person aggrieved. (Para 8)

       The so-called bias, as set out in the origi­nal petition, is that one of the experts was a member of an Organisa­tion which brought out a magazine of which the selected candidate was the Editor while one of the members of the Selection Committee was on the Editorial Board. Both the University as well as the selected candidate have pointed out that this fact was known to the first respondent throughout. He did not, at any time, object to the composi­tion of the Selection Committee. He objected only after the selection was over and he was not selected. This would amount to waiver of such objection on the part of the first respondent. What is more, we fail to see how on account of one of the experts being a member of an Organisation or being on the Editorial Board of a magazine brought out by that Organisation, he would necessarily be favourably inclined towards the Editor of that magazine. There is no allegation of any personal relationship between the member of the Selection Committee and the candidate. Not unnaturally, the concerned member of the Selection Committee has taken strong exception to the charge of bias. (Paras 9 and 10)

       Allegations of bias must be carefully examined before any selection can be set aside. In the first place, it is the joint responsibility of the entire Selection Commit­tee to select a candidate who is suitable for the post. When experts are appointed to the Committee for selection, the selection should not be lightly set aside unless there is adequate material which would indicate a strong likelihood of bias or show that any member of the Selection Committee had a direct personal interest in appointing any particular candidate. The expert in question, in the present case, had no personal interest in the selection of any particular candidate. It is not even alleged by the first respondent that he had any such personal interest in selection of the candidate who was selected. The mere fact that the expert as well as one of the candidates were mem­bers of the same organisation and connected with the magazine brought out by it would not be sufficient, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to come to a conclusion that the selector had a specific personal interest in the selection of that candidate. The experts, in the present case, are experts in Oriya language and are men of stature in their field. The candidates who would be considered for selection by the Selection Committee would also be candidates who have some stature or standing in Oriya language and literature, look­ing to the nature of the post. Any literary association in this con­text, or any knowledge about the literary activities of the candidates would not, therefore, necessarily lead to a conclusion of bias. Look­ing to the circumstances of the present case, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that the Selection Committee was biased in favour of the candidate selected. Therefore High Court’s judgment is set aside. (Para 10)