Allegations of bias due to a committee member being a candidate's guide require substantial evidence; mere association is insufficient to invalidate a selection process.

JUDGMENT :

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. Both these Letters Patent Appeals are amenable to being decided through a common verdict, on account of their enveloping a common issue for adjudication, besides arising from a common order.

2. Concisely and compendiously, the facts qua which there is no wrangle amongst the contesting litigants are that, two posts of Assistant Professor (Geography) were advertised by the respondent No.4- College, and in response, a total of 50 candidates applied. Out of these, 27 candidates were shortlisted and invited for an interview on 02.09.2013. Ultimately, two candidates, namely, Jitendra Kumar and Sangeeta (the appellants herein), were selected in order of merit by the duly constituted Selection Committee of seven members, which comprised not only expert members but also a nominee of the concerned University. Consequently, an offer of appointment was made to them on 21.09.2013, and they joined the service on the same day.

3. Feeling dissatisfied with the selection process, one of the unsuccessful candidates filed CWP-12119-2014 before this Court, alleging that the selection result was compromised by bias. It was claimed that a member of the Selection Committee was not only the guide of one of the selected candidates but also his co-author in the research papers submitted for evaluation during the interview.

4. Considering the undisputed fact that a member of the Selection Committee (respondent No. 7 herein) was not only the guide of one of the selected candidates (appellant- Jitendra Kumar) for his Ph.D. but also his co-author in research papers, the learned Single Judge, by drawing the impugned order dated 17.05.2018, allowed the writ petition and quashed the selection for the post of Assistant Professor. It was categorically observed that anything that raises an apprehension of bias in the minds of applicants competing for a post, is sufficient to nullify a selection process.

5. Fetching grievance from quashing of the selection, the selected candidates/present appellants have instituted these intra court appeals against the impugned order drawn by the learned Single Judge.

6. It is apposite to record here that although the selection was quashed vide the impugned order, during the pendency of these appeals, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide interim order dated 17.12.2018, allowed the appellants to continue in the posts they were holding. As such, the appellants have been continuing to discharge their duties as Assistant Professors (Geography) since their initial joining.

7. The learned senior counsel for the appellant- Jitendra Kumar, in his endeavour to assail the impugned order, argues that merely because a member of the Selection Committee happened to be the guide and co- author in research papers with the appellant, this does not, by itself, establish the existence of bias. In fact, the appellant’s guide/respondent No.7 also happened to be the guide of another shortlisted candidate, namely Rekha Sharma. However, she awarded only 6 marks to her, whereas awarded 18 marks to the appellant- Jitendra Kumar in the interview. This clearly reflects that the interview marks were awarded purely in accordance with the performance of the shortlisted candidates.

8. In furtherance of his above argument, he submits that it was not only the appellant whose guide was a member of the Selection Committee, but also the guides of the hereinafter enumerated three other shortlisted candidates, who were called for interview, were members of the Selection Committee. The respondent No.4-College, in respect whereof the posts were advertised, is affiliated with the M.D. University, Rohtak and experts are nomi