SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., M.H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.
Dr. G. Sarana, Appellant
Versus
University of Lucknow and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 861 of 1975
Decided on 28-7-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. K. Sen, Sr. Advocate (Mr. S. K. Bisaria, Advocate with him), for Appellant, Mr. C. P. Lal, Advocate (for Nos. 1-3), M/s. Yogeshwar Prasad and R. N. Trivedi, Advocates, (for No. 8), for Respondents.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article, 226 - Civil Appeal - Appellant challenging recommendation made by a Selection Committee for appointment - Appointment of respondent as Professor of Anthropology - Appellant filed the aforesaid petition under Art. 226 of Constitution challenging recommendation mainly on the ground that two out of aforesaid three experts and against him in favour of respondent No. 8 - It was alleged by the appellant that 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 appellant that Dr. Chopra had strained relations with him on account of straight election contest between him and the latter for the office of President of Anthropology Section of the Indian Science Congress for 1974 – Held, 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 consider it necessary in the present case to go into question of reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite fact that appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for interview or at the time of interview raise even his little finger against constitution of 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 constitution of Committee; it was held that failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him - Following observations made therein are worth quoting - It seems clear that 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 - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
JASWANT SINGH, J.:—This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and other dated March 31, 1975, of the 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 the University.
2. 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 following qualifications to fill up a vacant post of Professor of Anthropology:-
"Essential : First or high second class Masters degree and Doctorate in the subject concerned with a good academic record, experience of teaching post-graduate classes for not less than 7 years and/or having conducted and successfully guided research work of 7 years in recognised institution and having published work of high standard in the subject concerned.
Preferential : High academic distinction."
3. 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 Qualification & Experience
1. Dr. G. Sarana, Head of the Deptt. of Anthropology, Karnatak University, Dharwar. 38 years H. S. (U. P. Bd) 1949-1 Div; Inter (B. H. U.) 1951-1 Div; B. A. (L. U.) 1953-1 Div: M. A. (L. U.) 1955-I Div; Ph. D. (Harward (U)) 1966 Published 28 research papers and 3 books.
Worked as :-
(1) Temp. Lecturer in Anthropology L. U. July, 1955 - April 1962
(2) Lecturer in Anthropology - Punjab U - April-Aug., 1962.
(3) Visiting Lecturer - Univ. of California at Santa Barbara - July 1965 - June 1966.
(4) Karnatak University (September 1966 upto date) as Reader and since 27 June 1970 - as Professor.
2. Dr. K. S. Mathur, Reader and Head of the Deptt. of Anthropology, Lucknow University 44 years H.S. (U.P. Bd) 1944 - 1 Divn.
Inter (U.P. Ed) 1946 - I Divn.
B. Com (L.U.) 1948 - II Divn.
M. A. (L.U.) 1950 - I Divn.
Ph.D. (Australian National U.) - 1960. Published several research papers.
Worked as :-
(1) Lecturer in Anthropology - L. U. - 1951-64.
(2) Reader in Anthropology - L. U. - 1964 - continuing
(3) Sociologist - National Council of Appl. Economic Research, New Delhi March, September, 1960.
4. On February 27, 1974, a Selection Committee consisting of Shri A. K. K. Mustafi, Vice- Chancellor of the 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. Nayak, 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 of Anthropology.
5. On coming to know of the recommendation, the appellant filed the aforesaid petition under Art. 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 against him 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 1974. The appellant further averred that in 1968 when he was serving in the Pu
S.Parthasarthi v. State of A. P.
A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India
followed : A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India
followed : Manak Lal v. Prcin Chand
followed : Manak Lal v. Prem Chand
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.