1. Denial of promotion to Associate Professor despite qualifications and selection process; petitioner alleged bias. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2003 Supreme(SC) 859
Supreme Court of India
V.N. Khare, CJI., S.B. Sinha, J.
Abraham Kuruvila
Vs.
SCT Institute of Medical Science and Technology
SPL © No. 15745 of 2003
Decided on : 5rd September, 2003
Bias in administrative decisions must be proven with cogent evidence of a predisposition that leads to a miscarriage of justice. Courts cannot act as a super Selection Board or substitute their own assessment of a candidate's suitability for that of the competent authority.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Promotion - Selection Committee - Allegation of bias - Proof of bias requires a specific plea and cogent, sufficient evidence as it pertains to a state of mind and predisposition (Para 6) - General statements or old correspondence are insufficient to prove bias (Para 6) - Factual bias must be proven along with evidence that it resulted in a miscarriage of justice (Para 6).
(B) Judicial Review - Selection process - Scope of review is limited - Court cannot substitute the decision of a Selection Committee or act as a super Selection Board - Suitability and merit must be determined by the competent authority (Para 3).
Facts of the case:
An Assistant Professor was denied promotion to the post of Associate Professor. The petitioner alleged bias by members of the Selection Committee and interference by the administration in his faculty programmes. The High Court directed the Governing Body to reconsider the representation, excluding the allegedly biased members. The Governing Body subsequently rejected the representation, and the subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court, which held that suitability and merit must be adjudged by the competent authority.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to prove a predisposition or bias on the part of the respondents that affected the promotion process. The court held that the findings of the High Court were cogent and did not warrant interference.
Issues: Whether the allegation of bias was sufficiently proven to set aside the administrative decision and whether the court can substitute its own assessment of suitability for that of a Selection Committee.
Ratio Decidendi: Bias, meaning spite or ill will, must be proven through cogent evidence showing a predisposition, and it must be demonstrated that such bias led to a miscarriage of justice. Courts are restricted from acting as a super Selection Board and cannot substitute their own view of a candidate's merit for that of the competent authority.
Result: The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued mere likelihood of bias sufficient to set aside administrative order. (Para 4 )
3. Bias must be proved by cogent evidence; general statements insufficient; must show miscarriage of justice. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Bias requires requisite plea and cogent evidence; mere likelihood not enough without proof of miscarriage. (Para 6 )
5. Special leave petition dismissed; impugned judgment does not call for interference. (Para 7 )
6. What standard of proof is required to establish bias in administrative decisions?
Bias must be proved by raising a requisite plea and adducing cogent and sufficient evidence; general statements are insufficient. (Para 6 )
7. What is the scope of judicial review in selection committee decisions?
The court cannot act as a super selection board; judicial review is limited to examining procedural compliance and bias. (Para 3 , 5 )
8. Is a mere allegation of bias enough to invalidate a promotion decision?
No, the petitioner must also show that the alleged bias resulted in a miscarriage of justice. (Para 6 )
ORDER
1. The petitioner is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Neurology under the first respondent. He claims that he, in terms of the existing rules and having regard to the qualification possessed by him, should have been promoted to the post of Associate Professor. The petitioner was, however, denied the said promotion despite the fact that a Selection Committee had been set up for the abovementioned purpose in the year 1992. The petitioner has, however, allegedly been working in the post of Assistant Professor since 22-6-1994 but he was not given a higher salary by letter dated 4-8-1994 of the Director of the Institute, which is in the following terms:
"Sub.: Highest scale of pay at Assistant Professor level w.e.f. 22-6-1994.
Ref: Your letter dated 2-2-7-1994 ..
With reference to the above letter I may inform you that the Service and Personnel Conduct Rules of the Institute do not contain any enabling provision to fix your pay at Rs 4500 which is the maximum of the scale of pay applicable to Assistant Professors w.e.f. the date of your joining the Institute."
The petitioner alleges that the Director had been interfering in his programmes as faculty member and whenever a programme was submitted the same had been turned down. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed by the petitioner on a letter dated 12-3-1998 which is in the following terms:
"Subject: Reply to your letter dated 10-3-1998 about residents research project Clinical, Electroencephalographic and Radiological Correlation in Lesional Epilepsy.
The clinical electroencephalographic and radiological correlation in lesional epilepsy is what is being done through the Comprehensive Epilepsy Programme for over 2 years. There is nothing novel in your idea. Your proposal creates a conflict of interest. Moreover, without VEEG and surgical outcome data, the research will be incomplete. Hence, contrary to your statement, the proposal will only provide an inferior quality of information.
After discussing the contents of your letter in the Epilepsy Section meeting, I came to the conclusion that I cannot permit you to proceed with the above project. I have also discussed the whole issue with the Director.
If you are unable or unwilling to change the research project by March 25th, Dr. Joy will have another Supervising Consultant."
2. The post of Associate Professor was proposed to be filled up. The petitioner along with others appeared before the Selection Committee in an interview. He was not promoted. The recommendations of the Selection Committee had been accepted. According to the petitioner, those who had been recommended for promotion to the said post had not published any article. He filed a representation before the second respondent pointing out purported irregularities committed by the Senior Staff Selection Committee. He thereafter filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court raising, inter alia, a contention that some of the private respondents were biased against him. A learned Single Judge by reason of a judgment dated 26-3-2002 without going into the question of bias raised by the petitioner directed that he may file a representation which may be considered on its own merits. The learned Single Judge opined that the High Court cannot substitute the decision of the Selection Committee. However, without expressing any final opinion, it was directed thus:
" ... I direct the Governing Body of the first respondent Institute to consider the representation of the petitioner against his non-selection. This the Governing Body shall do in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Respondents 3 and 10 may not participate in the Governing Body, if they are members of the same, while this matter is considered by the said forum. Having regard to the materials produced in this case and to avoid the charge of bias and to uphold the purity of the decision, I am making this orde
