Bias in selection processes must be substantiated with evidence; mere suspicion is insufficient to invalidate decisions.

JUDGMENT :

1. An unsuccessful litigant approached the Court challenging the selection process on multiple grounds including the constitution of the selection committee and their conduct in awarding the marks in the interview as an outcome of bias and favouritism. The selection process for filling the post of an Assistant Head Master in a relevant school was initiated in terms of the provisions contained in Memo No. 1628 dated 10th July, 2022. The said Memo contains an exhaustive provision, the mechanisms and the procedure to be adopted for selection of the eligible candidate to the post of a Assistant Head Master including the awarding of the marks on various counts.

2. According to the appellant the paragraph 3 of the said Memo postulates who shall be the members of the selection committee which includes a nominee of the Panchayat Samity and one Teachers representative to be selected by the managing committee.

3. It is a specific case of the appellant that the words “Selection” cannot be substituted with the word “Election” and the moment it is found that the Teachers representative is elected and not selected it vitiates the entire selection process.

4. It was vociferously submitted before the Single Bench that out of five members of the selection committee, two members namely the nominee of the Panchayat Samity and the Teachers representative awarded abysmally low marks in comparison to the other members and therefore the marks awarded by the majority should be taken as a composite marks and if such exercise is undertaken, the appellant would come in the first position of the panel.

5. The appellant has taken the plea of bias based upon the marks awarded in the interview by the aforementioned two members and have further proceeded to contend that those members do not have the requisite qualification more particularly the nominee of the Panchayat Samity to adjudge the capability, knowledge, proficiency of a teacher in a relevant subject.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings and the submissions advanced before the Single Bench, the writ petition was dismissed as the points so raised does not hold water in eye of law. The said order is assailed before us in the Intra Court appeal and we invited the counsel for the respective parties to address us on the merit thereof.

7. Ms. Maiti, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant vociferously submits that the nominee of the Panchayat Samity and the Teachers representative have acted in bias in awarding the low marks in the interview when the other members of the said selection committee awarded a higher marks and, therefore, bias being one of the factor where the Court should step in and quash and set aside all the decision of the administrative authority. Ms. Maiti further submits that the Teachers representative was in fact elected and not selected and, therefore, it offends the provision of the said guidelines and the moment it is found that the constitution of the selection committee is in contravention to the said guidelines, it would vitiate the entire selection process. Ms. Maiti further submits that the nominee of the Panchayat Samity does not have the requisite qualification and, therefore, the marks awarded by him should be ignored and/or discarded and the marks awarded by the majority should be taken for arriving at the average of the total marks.

8. Ms. Maiti further submits that the Writ Court passed an order of injunction on 08.02.2018 restraining the authority from giving appointment to the post and it appears that the approval was granted by the District Inspector of School on 23rd February, 2018 when the said interim order was subsisting which per se is illegal. Ms. Maiti audaciously submits that any action done on the teeth of an order of temporary injunction is always regarded as illegal and, therefore, such appointment so made should immediately be quashed and set aside. Ms. Maiti further submits that the life span of the panel being three months from the date