1992 Supreme(All) 343

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. KATJU, J.
Shailja Srivastava - Appellant
Versus
Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31766 of 1991
Decided on : May 25, 1992

The presence of a member with a reasonable apprehension of bias on a decision-making body vitiates the proceedings of the body, and the absence of a teacher of the subject on the Examination Grievance Board and the submission of the report by a single member violate the University rules and regulations, rendering the proceedings vitiated.

Headnote:

EXAMINATION - BIAS - RULE OF BIAS - CENTRAL GRIEVANCE BOARD - EXAMINATION GRIEVANCE BOARD - MODERATION BOARD - APPOINTMENT OF EXAMINERS - MALPRACTICE - LEAKAGE OF QUESTION PAPER - MODERATION - NATURAL JUSTICE - FAIRNESS - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - WRIT JURISDICTION - EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF BIAS - REAL LIKELIHOOD OF BIAS - SELECTION COMMITTEE - SELECTION PROCESS - UNIVERSITY RULES AND REGULATIONS - MALADMINISTRATION - MALPRACTICE - MALAFIDES - UNFAIR TREATMENT - DISCRIMINATION - MERIT LIST - RE-EXAMINATION - SUPPLEMENTARY EXAMINATION - WALKOUT - TEACHER-STUDENT RELATIONSHIP - GURU-SHISHYA PARAMPARA - CONFIDENCE AND RESPECT - FAIRNESS AND IMPARTIALITY - JUDICIAL INTERVENTION - ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION - JUDICIAL SCRUTINY - EXPANSIVE JUDICIAL REVIEW - FAIR PROCEDURE - REASONABLENESS - STATUTORY AUTHORITY - JUST DECISION - INTEREST OF PERSONS - AFFECTING RIGHTS OF PERSONS - ABUSE OF POWER - VITIATED PROCEEDINGS - QUASHING OF REPORTS AND DECISIONS - MANDAMUS - OVERALL MERIT LIST - PREPARATION OF MERIT LIST - ANNOUNCEMENT OF RESULTS - PRODUCTION OF CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT - NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners appeared for M.A./M.Sc examination in Home Science in Banaras Hindu University in May 1991. They alleged unfair treatment, leakage of question paper, improper appointment of examiners, and irregularities in the moderation process. They staged a walkout during the examination and sought a re-examination. The University authorities constituted Examination Grievance Board and Central Grievance Board to address the grievances, but the petitioners alleged bias and irregularities in these proceedings as well.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias against respondent No. 4, who was a member of the Central Grievance Board and also involved in other proceedings related to the examination. The court held that the presence of respondent No. 4 on the Central Grievance Board vitiated the proceedings of the Board. The court also found that the Examination Grievance Board proceedings were vitiated due to the absence of a teacher of the subject on the Board and the submission of the report by respondent No. 4 alone.

Issues: 1. Whether the presence of respondent No. 4 on the Central Grievance Board vitiated the proceedings of the Board? 2. Whether the Examination Grievance Board proceedings were vitiated due to the absence of a teacher of the subject on the Board and the submission of the report by respondent No. 4 alone? 3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a re-examination?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the presence of respondent No. 4 on the Central Grievance Board vitiated the proceedings of the Board because there was a reasonable apprehension of bias against her. The court relied on the principles of natural justice, fairness, and administrative law, which require that decision-making bodies should be free from bias and that there should be a fair and impartial hearing. 2. The court held that the Examination Grievance Board proceedings were vitiated due to the absence of a teacher of the subject on the Board and the submission of the report by respondent No. 4 alone. The court found that this violated the University rules and regulations, which required the presence of a teacher of the subject on the Board and the submission of a report by the entire Board. 3. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to a re-examination because the irregularities and malpractices in the examination process had prejudiced their rights and affected the fairness of the examination.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the reports of the Examination Grievance Board and Central Grievance Board, and the decision of the University communicated to the petitioners. The court directed the University to treat the supplementary examination of the petitioners as a re-examination and announce their results within one month of the production of a certified copy of the judgment. The court also directed the University to prepare the overall merit list accordingly.