G. SARANA v. UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW & ORS. July 28, 1976 [A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] Doctrine of waiver-Bar of waiver, whether applicdble to later grievance against 'bias'.
Constitution of India, Article 226-When alternative remedies available, whether writ petition maintainable. The appellant and respondent No. 8 applied for the vacant post of Professor of Anthropology in the Faculty of Arts, in answer to an advertisement put up by the Lucknow University. A selection committee of five persons including C · three experts, interviewed them and recommended respondent No. 8 for the post.
The appellant's writ pet.ition challenging the recommendation was dismissed by the High Court. The appellant contended before this, Court that two of the expert members of the selection committee were unduly biased against him and in favour of respondent No. 8. The appeal was contested on two grounds. Firstly, that by submitting to the jurisdiction of the selection committee, the appellant had waived his right to denounce its consrituti©n, and secondly, that the impugned recommendation being an jnterlocutory proceeding against \vhich alternative remedies were available, the writ petition was not maintainable. Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
. HELD : . 1. Despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, 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 the constitution of the committee. [70 A-BJ
Manak Lal v. Prem Chand [1957] SCR 575=AIR 1957 S.C. 425, applied. Linahan [19431 138 F. 2nd 650; A. K. Kal"ipak v. Union of India [1970] 1 SCR 457=AIR 1970 SC 150; Nageslnvar Rao v. State of A.P. [1960] 1 SCR 580=AIR 1959 SC 1376; S. Parthararathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1974] l SLR 427; Farooq Ahmad Bandey and Ors. v. Principal Regional Engineering College & Anr. [1975] J&K L.R. 427; Principles of Administrative Law by J. A. G: Griffith and H. Street (4th edition) and 'Judicial Review of Adminis- trative Action' (3rd Edition) by Prof. S. A. De Smith, referred to. 2. The recommendation of the selection committee has still to be scrutinised by the Executive Council of the University and either accepted or rejected by it, and other remedies by way of representation to the Executive Council aad an application for reference of the matter under s. 68 of the Uttar Pradesh Universities (Re-enactment and Amendment) Act, 1974, to the Chancellor are still open to the appellant and have not been exhausted. The writ petition or the present appeal before us is not maintainable. po 0-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 861 of 1975. (Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 31-3-1975 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in writ
petition, No. 405 of 1974;.) A. K. Sen and S. K. Bisaria, for the appellant. C. P. Lal, for respondents. 1-3. Yogesh1w1r Prasad and R. N. Trivedi, for re!lpondents No. 8. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JASWANT SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated March 31, 1975, of Lucknow Bench of _j G. SARANA v. UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW (Jaswant Singh, !.)
1hc Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition No. 405 of 1974 filed by the appellant challenging the recommendation made by a Selec- tion 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.
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 fi!I up a vacant post of Professor of Anthropology :- ·
"Essential : · First or high second class Master's degree and Doctorate in the sub.iect concerned with a good acade- mic record, experience of teaching post-graduate classes for not less than 7 years and/or having conducted and success- fully guided research wprk for 7 years in recognised institu- tion and having published work of high standard in the sub- ject concerned."
Preferential : High academic distinctions." The appellant and' respondent No. 8 were the only two candidates · who applied for the post in response to the advertisement Their res- pective qualifications are ll;S set out hereunder :-
S. No. Name· 1. Dr. G. Sarana, Head of Deptt. · of Anthropology, Karnatak University, Dharwar. – Age 38 years Qualifications & Experience 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.) 1965-1 Div.· Ph.D. (Harvard (U) 1966. Published 28 research papers and 3 books. Worked as:· (1) Temp. Lecturer in Antbro-" pology L.U. July,. 1955-April,
1962. (2) Lecturer in Anthropology- Punjab. U-April-August, 1962. (3) Visiting Lecturer~Univ. of California at Santa_ ; Barbara· July 1965-June 1966. .C (4) Kamatak University (September 1966 upto
date as Reader and since 27 June 1970) as Professor. c S.No. Name Age 2. Dr. K. S. Mathur, 44 years Reader and Head of the Deptt. of Anthropology, Lucknow University. Qualifications & Experience
H. S. (U. P. Bd) 1944- I Divn. Inter (U. P. Bd) 1946- I Divn. B. Com (L. U.) 1950- l Divn. Ph. D. (Australian National U.) 1960. Published several research pa~c1s. Worked as:- (J) Lecturer
in Anthropology,. f + L. U.-1951-64. (2) Reader in Anthropology- 'L.U. -1964-continuing (3) Sociologist- National Coun- cil of Appl. Economic Research, New Delhi March-September- 1960.
On February 27, 1974,, a Selection Committee consisting of Shri A. K. K. Mustafi, Vic~ancellor 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. Mayak, respondents 3,. 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively met to interview the candidates and to make their' recom- mendation to the Executive Council of the University. After interview- ing the aforesaid two candidates, the Selection Committee resolved to recommend respondent No. 8 herein for appointment to the aforesaid post of Professor of Anthropolo~.
On coming to know of the recommendation, the appellant filed the aforesaid petition under Article 226 of the Constitution chal1enging the recommendation mainly on the ground that two out of the aforesaid three experts viz., Dr. S. C., Dube and Dr. S. R. K. Chopra were biased against him and in favour of respondent No. 8. It was alleged by the appellant that thl'l respondent had close relations with the aforesaid two experts as he was instrumental in obtaining many remunerative assign- ments 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 Punjab University as a Lecturer in the Department of Anthr9pology headed by Dr. Chopra, the latter stubbornly opposed his application for leave to avail of the offer of fellowship from Harvard University and stopped forwarding his saJ3r• bills to the Executive Council wi!h the ulterior object of depriving him of the opportunity to attain higher academic qualification and: thereby better his future prospects with ,the result that he was compelled to
resign his job and surrender three months' salary in lieu of notice to avail of the offer. f- G. SARANA v. UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW (Jaswant Singh, J.) The petition was vigorously contested by respondent No. 8. On
consideration of the material placed before it, the High Court, how- ever, dismissed the application holding that though respondent No. 8 was the head of the department of Anthropology,, he was not the: only person responsible for bestowing various assignments e~ther on Dr. Dube or on Dr. Chopra and that it was the Executive Council and the Academic Council which were responsible for giving those assignments to Dr. Dube and Dr. Chopra. It was further held by the High Court that there was nothing unusual in Dr. Dube and Dr. Chopra's know- ing and enjoying ,the hospitality of respondent No. 8.
The fact that the appellant had an election contest with Dr. Chopra was also, in the opinion of, the High Court, of no significance, as such like contests were very common and it could not be said that Dr. Chopra had deve- loped such a degree of ill-will and hostility against the appellant for the latter's standing as a candidate against him so as to render him incapable. of acting impartially when the task of selecting the best can- didate was assigned to him and that it was not possible to presume that Dr. Dube and Dr. Chopra were in a position tQ intluence the decision of the entire Selection Committee by injecting bias in the minds of the other members. The High Court finally held that from the facts relied upon by the appellant, bias could not be spelt out. In arriving at its decision, the High Court relied upon the following observations· made by Frank, J. of the United States of America in re. Linahan. (I) "If, however, "bias" and "partiality" be. defined to mean
the total absence of preconceptions in the mind of the Judge, then no one has ever had a fair trial,, and nd one ever will. The human mind, even at infancy, is no blank piece of paper. We are born with predispositions and the processes of edu- cation, formal and informal, create attitudes which precede reasoning in particular instances and which,
therefore, by definition, are prejudices." The High Court also held that the appellant having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Selection Committee, he could not be permitted to turn round and denounce the con:>titution of the Committee. Counsel for the parties have reiterated before us the contentions :aised on behalf of their clients before the High Court. In addition, 1t has been contended by cognsel for respondent No. 8 tha.t the im~ pugned recommendation being in the nature of an interlocutory pro- ceeding,, neither the writ petition nor the appeal arising therefromi could be maintained .
. It is needless to emphasize that thel principles of natural justice which are_ meant. t? prevent mi~c~rria&e of justice are also appl.icable to domestic enqmnes and adm1mstrat1ve proceedings.
(See A. K. Karipak v. Union of /!1dia( 2 ) •. It cannot also be disputed that one of !he. f_undamental. pnnc1ples of n~tural justice is that in case of quasi- .iud1crnl proceedmgs, the authonty empowered to deciJe the dispute fl) [1943], 138F. 2nd 650 at 652.
(2) [J969] 2 S.C.C. 262 : [1970) 1 S.C.R. 457 : A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 150. c SUPREME COD.RT REPORTS between ~pposin~ P.arties must be one\ without bias by which is meant an operative preiud1ce, whether conscious or unconscious towards one side or the other in the dispute.
(See Nageswara Rao v. A. P. State Road Tralisport Corporation(') and Gul/apalli Nages!twar Rao v. State of A.P.e). It _would be advantageous at this stage to refer to the following ob- servat10ns made by this Court in Mana/a Lal v. Prem Chand(3). "Every member of a tribunal that sits to try issues
in jt!dicial or quasi-judical proceedings, must be able to act judi- cially; and the essence of judicial decisions and judicial ad- mi~ist~ation is tha_t judges sho~ld be able tq act impartially, obiectively and without any bias.
In such cases the .~est is not whether in fact a bias has affected' the judo-ment· the test always is and must be whether a litigant· co~ld rda5onably apprehend that a bias a'.tributable to a member of the tribu- nal might have operated against him in the final decision of the tribunal. It is in this sense~ that it is o£ten said that jus- tice must not only be done but must also appear to be done." Again as held by this Court in A. K. Karipak's case
(supra), re- iterated in S. Parthasarthi v. State of Andhra Pradesh( 1 ) and followed by the High Court of Jammu & ~i!shmh' in Farooq Ahmed Pandey and Ors. v. Principal Regional Engineering College & Anr.( 0) the real question is not whether a member of an administrative Board while exercising quasi-judicial powers or discharging quasi-judicial functions was biased, for it is difficult to prove the mind o~ 'a person. What has to be seen is whether there is. a reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased. In deciding the question of bias, human probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct have to be taken into consideratiQn. In a group deliberation and decision like that of a Selectioni Board, the members do not function as computers. Each member of the group or board is bound to influence the others, more so if the member concerned is a person with special knowledge. His bias is likely to operate in a subtle manner.
At page 156 of "Principles of Administrative Law" by J. A. G. Griffith and H. Street (Fourth Edition), the position with regard to bias is aptly and succinctly stated as follows :-
"The prohibition of bias strikes' against factors which may improperly influence a judge in deciding in favour of one party. The first of the three disablin~ typi;s o~ bi~s is. bias on the subject-matter.
Only rarely will this bias mvahdate proceedings. "A mere general interest in the general object to be pursued would not disqualify,," said Field J., holding that a magistrate who subscribed to th~ Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was not thereby disabled
(1) [1959) Supp. 1 S.C.R. 319 : A.T.R. 1959 S.C. 308. (2) A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 1376 : [1960] 1 S.C.R. 580. (3) [1957] S.C.R. 575 : A.J.R. 1957 S.C. 425. (4) [1974] S.L.R. 427. (5) [1975] J & K. L. R. 427.
·t G. SARANA v. UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW (Jaswant Singh, !.) from trying a charge brought by that body of cruelty Jo a horse. There must be some direct connection with the litiga- tion. If there is such prejudice on the subject-matter that the court has reached fixed
and unalterable conclusions not founded on reason or under§!llnding, so that there is not a fair hearing, that is bias of which the courts will take ac- count, as where a jnstice announced his intention of co1i- victing anyone coming before him on a charge of supplying
liquor after the permitted hours ………. . Secondly, a pecuniary interest, however, slight will dis- qualify, even though it is not proved that the decision is in any way affected.
The third type of bias is personal bias. A Judge may be a relative, friend or business associate of a party, or he may be personally hostile as a result of events happening e.ither before or during the course of a trial. The c.ourts have not been consistent in laying down when bias of this type will in- validate a hearing.
The House of Lords in Frome United Brewering v. Bath Justices(') approved an earlier test of whether "there is a real likelihood :of bias." The House of Lords has since approved al
dictum of Lord Hewart that "justice should not only be done,, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done" al,though it did not men- tion another test suggested by him in the same judgment :
Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice." At page 225 of his Treatise on "Judicial Review of Administrative Action" (Third Edition), Prof. S. A. De Smith, has stated as follows with regard to Reports and Preliminary decisions :-
"The case-law on the point is thiR, but on principle it would seem tha~ where a report or determination lacking final effect may nevertheless have a seri_ously judicial effect on the legally protected interests of individuals (e.g. when it is a necessary prerequisite of a final order) the person making the report or preliminary decision must not be affected by interest or likelihood of bias."
From the above discussion, it clearly follows that what has to be seen in a case where there is an allegation of bias in respect of a mem- ber 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 tl}e aggrieved party.
We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the -reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the (1) (1926) A.C. 586.
c c intervie.w raise even his littie finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the Committee and taken a chance of having a; favourable recommen- dation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to hin1 -to turn round and q_u~tionl the constitution of the Committee. This view gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal's case (supra)
where in more or less .similar circumstances,. it was held that thei failme of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him. The follow- ing 0bservations made therein are worth quoting:–
"It seems clear that the 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.'',
It is also difficult to understand how the writ petition. or for that matter the present app~al b_efore us is maintainable when the recommen- dation· of the Selection Committee has still to be scrutinzed by the Ex- ecutiive Council 0£ the University and either accepted or rejected by it and other remedies by way of representation to the Executive Council and an application for reference of the matter under section 68 of the Uttar Pradesh Universities (Re-enactment and Amendment) Act, 1974, to the Chancellor are still open to the appellant and have not been ex- hausted.
For the foregoing reasons, we find our_t;~ves unable to allow the appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances 1 of the case without any order as to costs. M.R.·
Appeal dismissed. ,-t