CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3236 of 1995 PETITIONER: UTKAL UNIVERSITY ETC. RESPONDENT: DR. NRUSINGHA CHARAN SARANGI AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/01/1999 BENCH: MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR & R.C. LAHOTI JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
1999 (1) SCR 19
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The appellant-Utkal University issued an advertisement inviting ap-
plications, inter alia, for the post of Reader in Oriya. The advertisement
was dated 10.11.1989. The last date for submitting the applications was
originally 11.12.1989 which was subsequently extended to 12.3.1990. 37
candidates applied for the post of Reader in Oriya. Out of these, 33
candidates were called for interview and 23 appeared at the interview which
was held by the Selection Committee on 22.6.1990. The Selection Committee
consisted of Mr. T. Pradhan, Vice Chancellor, Dr. G.P. Guru, the nominee of
the Director of Higher Education and three experts, Dr. K.B. Tripathy, Dr.
K. Mohapatra and Dr. J.B. Mohanty. The minutes of the Selection Committee
of that date record that,
“Taking into consideration the academic record, teaching ex-perience,
research activities, teaching experience of the candidates and their
performance at the interview, the Committee recom-mends in order of
preference :-
(1) Dr. Surendranath Dash
(2) Dr. Bijay Kumar Mohanty for appointment as Reader for the Post
Graduate Department of Oriya.”
The Syndicate of the University accepted the recommendation of the
Selection Committee to appoint Dr. Surendranath Dash as Reader in Oriya at
the meeting of the Syndicate held on 13.7.1990. Dr. Surendranath Dash was
accordingly appointed reader in Oriya.
In the meanwhile, respondent No. 1, Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi, who was
one of the candidates for the post, filed a writ petition in the High Court
challenging the selection so made. In his writ petition, he challenged the
constitution of the Selection Committee on the ground that the three
experts on the Committee were not from outside the State of Orissa. He also
contended that after the expiry of the last date for submitting applica-
tions but before the interview, he had acquired D. Litt Degree. However, no
marks had been given to him by the Selection Committee for this degree. The
third ground of challenge was that one of the members of the Selection
Committee. Dr. K Mohapatra, was biased in favour of Dr. Surendranath Dash,
the selected candidate.
In the impugned judgment and order, the High Court upheld the composition
of the Selection Committee. The High Court, however, set aside the
selection of Dr. Surendranath Dash on the ground that the degree of D. Litt
of the petitioner before it, Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sanrangi, was not taken
into account by the Selection Committee. It also held that Dr. K. Mohapatra
was a member of an Organisation “Shri Jagannath Gabesana Parishad” and was
on the Editorial Board of a magazine brought out by this organisation while
the selected candidate was the Editor of this magazine. He was, therefore,
biased in favour of the selected candidate.
The present appeals have been filed before us by the University as well as
the selected candidate. Although we adjourned these appeals on the last
occasion because learned counsel for the first respondent was absent, the
first respondent and his advocate are absent though served, when the matter
is again called out today. We have, therefore, heard the appeals in their
absence.
The University has drawn our attention to the guidelines formulated by the
University in respect of, inter alia,, educational qualifications and other
conditions for the teaching posts of the University which were advertised
on 10.11.1989. The guidelines, inter alia, deal with essential
qualifications for the post of Reader. The guide-lines require good
academic record with Doctoral degree or equivalent published work. Evidence
of being actively engaged in (i) Research, or (ii) Innovation in teaching
methods or (iii) Production of teaching materials would be taken into
account. In respect of experience at teaching, the guidelines prescribed
about five year’s experience of teaching or research provided that at least
three of these years were as a Lecturer or equivalent position. This condi-
tion may be relaxed in the case of candidates with outstanding record of
teaching/research. By the time the interviews took place, the University
had framed statues. Under Schedule A framed pursuant to Statute 258, an
objective system of evaluation of candidates for teaching posts had been
prescribed. In respect of Professors and Readers, five marks were to be
awarded for M.Phil while ten marks were to be awarded for Ph.D. degree. 12
marks were to be awarded if a candidate possessed both M. Phil and Ph.D.
degrees. Teaching experience carried 10 marks but only Honours and Post
Graduate teaching was to be considered for this purpose. Ten marks were
also to be awarded for research publications. Relying upon this system of
evaluation, the first respondent contended before the High Court that there
was no scope for any marks being awarded for D. Litt degree in this system
of evaluation. He had, therefore, been deprived of credit for his D. Litt
degree. This contention seems to have been upheld by the High Court. The
University has, however, pointed out in its affidavit filed before the High
Court that the objective system of evaluation lays down minimum
qualifications for the post and how these qualifications are to be
assessed. It is pointed out that if the candidate possesses an additional
qualification such as D. Litt degree for which research may have been done
by the candidate, he can be given suitable credit for that work under the
Heading “Research Publications”. The University has also rightly pointed
out that upto the last date of submitting applications under the said
advertisement, the first respondent had not obtained the qualification of a
D.Litt degree. He had obtained this qualification, however, prior to the
interview. There-fore, there would have been nothing wrong in the Selection
Committee not taking this qualification into account.
What is, however, important is that the record does not show whether the
Selection Committee, in fact, gave or did not give credit for this
qualification. What is more important, there is no reason to hold that if
any additional marks were to be given to the first respondent for this
qualification, he would be selected. His name does not figure in the list
of candidates selected by the Selection Committee. Only two persons were
selected out of 23 candidates who were interviewed. This contention,
therefore, cannot be relied upon for the purpose of invalidating the selec-
tion of Dr. Surendranath Dash.
It is in this context that the submission of the University regarding the
locus standi of the first respondent to file the writ petition must also be
considered. The University has rightly pointed out that the original writ
petition does not disclose any legal injury to the original
petitioner/present first respondent, because there is no reason to come to
a conclusion that he would have been selected even if all his contentions
in the writ petition were accepted. The University has relied upon the
decision of this Court in Jashbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji
Bashir Ahmed & Ors. reported in [1976] 3 SCR 58 at page 71 for the purpose
of pointing out that the first respondent stands more in the position of a
meddlesome interloker than a person aggrieved. There is much force in this
contention also.
The last contention of the first respondent which has been accepted by the
High Court is that of bias on the part of one of the members of the
Selection Committee. The so-called bias, as set out in the original
petition, is that one of the experts was a member of an Organisation which
brought out a magazine of which the selected candidate was the Editor while
one of the members of the Selection Committee was on the Editorial Board.
Both the University as well as the selected candidate have pointed out that
this fact was known to the first respondent throughout. He did not, at any
time, object to the composition of the Selection Committee. He objected
only after the selection was over and he was not selected. This would
amount to waiver of such objection on the part of the first respondent.
Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in G. Sarana v. University
of Lucknow & Ors. reported in [1977] 1 SCR 64 in which this Court found
that despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he
had voluntarily appeared before the Committee and took, a chance of having
a favourable recommendation from it Having done so, it was not open to him
to turn round and question the constitution of the Committee. A similar
view has been taken by this Court in the case of U.D. Lama & Ors. v. State
of Sikkim & Ors. reported in [1997] 1 SCC 111 at 119.
What is more, we fail to see how on account of one of the experts being a
member of an Organisation or being on the Editorial Board of a magazine
brought out by that Organisation, he would necessarily be favourably
inclined towards the Editor of that magazine. There is no allegation of any
personal relationship between the member of the Selec-tion Committee and
the candidate. Not unnaturally, the concerned member of the Selection
Committee has taken strong exception to the charge of bias. In his letter
addressed to the University dated 10.6.1994, he has pointed out that he
was, in fact, more closely connected with the first respondent, Dr.
Nrusingha Charan Sarangi than the selected candidate. He has pointed out
that the first respondent hails from his native place, belongs to the
family of his priest and the first respondent has dedicated his book to the
said member. All this is prior to the said interview. He has also pointed
out that he agreed to be associated with the said Shri Jagan-nath Gabesana
Parishad only because his teacher is one of its founders. Another expert on
the Selection Committee, Dr. J.B. Mohanty, has also addressed a letter
dated 21.1.1994 to the University pointing out that the selected candidate
was selected on merit after taking into consideration his academic record,
Honours teaching experience, research activities and performance at the
interview. The first respondent although he was given time to file a
counter affidavit here after all these documents were dis-closed, has not
filed any reply. Allegations of bias must be carefully examined before any
selection can be set aside. In the first place, it is the joint
responsibility of the entire Selection Committee to select a candidate who
is suitable for the post. When experts are appointed to the Committee for
selection, the selection should not be lightly set aside unless there is
adequate material which would indicate a strong likelihood of bias or show
that any member of the Selection Committee had a direct personal interest
in appointing any particular candidate. The expert in question, in the
present case, had no personal interest in the selection of any particular
candidate. It is not even alleged by the first respondent that he had any
such personal interest in selection of the candidate who was selected. The
mere fact that the expert as well as one of the candidates were members of
the same organisation and connected with the magazine brought out by it
would not be sufficient, in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, to come to a conclusion that the selector had a specific personal
interest in the selection of that candidate. The experts, in the present
case, are experts in Oriya language and are men of stature in their field.
The candidates who would be considered for selection by the Selection Com-
mittee would also be candidates who have some stature or standing in Oriya
language and literature, looking to the nature of the post. Any literary
association in this context, or any knowledge about the literary activities
of the candidates would not, therefore, necessarily lead to. a conclusion
of bias. Looking to the circumstances of the present case, it is not
possible to come to a conclusion that the Selection Committee was biased in
favour of the candidate selected.
In the premises, the appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment and order
of the High Court is set aside and the original writ petition is dismissed.