{"id":155450,"date":"1976-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976"},"modified":"2017-02-04T23:15:57","modified_gmt":"2017-02-04T17:45:57","slug":"g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976","title":{"rendered":"G. Sarana vs University Of Lucknow & Ors on 28 July, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
G. Sarana vs University Of Lucknow & Ors on 28 July, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 2428, \t\t 1977 SCR (1)\t 64<\/div>\n
Author: J Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: Singh, Jaswant<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nG. SARANA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT28\/07\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nSINGH, JASWANT\nBENCH:\nSINGH, JASWANT\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR 2428\t\t  1977 SCR  (1)\t 64\n 1976 SCC  (3) 585\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1990 SC1402\t (26)\n RF\t    1991 SC 933\t (10)\n\n\nACT:\n\t     Doctrine of waiver--Bar of waiver, whether applicable to\n\tlater grivance against'bias'.\n\t     Constitution  of India, Article  226--When\t alternative\n\tremedies available, whether writ petition maintainable.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\t    The\t appellant  and\t respondent No. 8  applied  for\t the\n\tvacant\tpost of Professor of Anthropology in the Faculty  of\n\tArts,  in answer to an advertisement put up by\tthe  Lucknow\n\tUniversity.  A selection committee of five persons including\n\tthree  experts, interviewed them and recommended  respondent\n\tNo. 8 for the post.  The appellant's writ petition challeng-\n\ting the recommendation was dismissed by the High Court.\t The\n\tappellant contended before this Court that two of the expert\n\tmembers\t of  the  selection  committee\twere  unduly  biased\n\tagainst\t him and in favour of respondent No. 8.\t The  appeal\n\twas contested on two grounds. Firstly, that by submitting to\n\tthe  jurisdiction of the selection committee, the  appellant\n\thad  waived his right to denounce its constitution and\tsec-\n\tondly, that the impugned recommendation being an  interlocu-\n\ttory  proceeding against which remedies were available,\t the\n\twrit petition was not maintainable.\n\tDismissing the appeal, the Court,\n\t  HELD: 1. Despite the fact that the appellant knew all\t the\n\trelevant facts,he seems to have voluntarily appeared  before\n\tthe  committee\tand taken a chance of  having  a  favourable\n\trecommendation from it\tHaving done so it is no now open  to\n\thim  to\t turn  round and question the  constitution  of\t the\n\tcommittee.[70 A-B]\n\tManak  Lal v. Prem Chand<\/a> [1957] SCR 575=AIR 1957  S.C.\t425,\n\tapplied.\n\t    Linahan [1943] 138 F. 2nd 650; A. K. Karipak v. Union of\n\tIndia  [1970]  1 SCR 457=ALR 1970 SC 150; Nageshwar  Rao  v.\n\tState of A.P. [1960] 1 SCR 580=AIR 1959 SC 1376; S.  Partha-\n\trarathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1974] 1 SLR 427;  Farooq\n\tAhmad  Bandey  and Ors. v.  Principal  Regional\t Engineering\n\tCollege\t & Anr. [1975] I&K L.R. 427; Principles of  Adminis-\n\ttrative\t Law by I.A.G. Griffith and H. Street (4th  edition)\n\tand Judicial Review of Administrative Action' (3rd  Edition)\n\tby Prof. S.A. De Smith, referred to.\n\t2.  The recommendation of the selection committee has  still\n\tto be scrutinised by the Executive Council of the University\n\tand  either accepted or rejected by  and other\tremedies  by\n\tway  of\t representation\t to the\t executive  council  and  an\n\tapplication  for reference of the matter under s. 68 of\t the\n\tUttar Pradesh Universities (Reenactment and Amendment)\tAct,\n\t1974,  to the Chance or are till open to the  appellant\t and\n\thave  not  been exhausted  The writ petition or\t he  present\n\tappeal before us is not maintainable. [70 C-D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.\t 861
\n\t\t of 1975.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t (Appeal  by  Special Leave from  the  Judgment\t and
\n\t\t Order dated
\n\t\t 1-3-1975  of  the  Allahabad  High  Court  (Lucknow
\n\t\t Bench) in writ
\n\t\t petition No. 405 of 1974.)
\n\t\t     A.K. Sen and S.K. Bisaria, for the appellant.
\n\t\t     C.P. Lal for respondents 1-3.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t Yogeshwar Prasad and R.N. Trivedi, for respondents.
\n\t\t No. 8.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n\t    JASWANT  SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave  is\t di-
\n\trected against the judgment and order dated March 31,  1975,
\n\tof Lucknow Bench of
\n\t65<\/span>
\n\tthe  Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ  petition\t No.
\n\t405 of 1974 filed by the appellant challenging the recommen-
\n\tdation made by a Selection Committee of the Lucknow  Univer-
\n\tsity  (hereinafter  referred  to as  ‘the  University’)\t for
\n\tappointment of respondent No. 8 as Professor of Anthropology
\n\tin the Faculty of Arts of the University.
\n\t    The\t facts giving rise to this appeal are:\ttowards\t the
\n\tend of the year 1973, the University put up an advertisement
\n\tinviting applications from candidates possessing the follow-
\n\ting  qualifications  to\t fill up a vacant post of  Professor
\n\tof Anthropology :—\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       “Essential:   First  or\thigh  second   class
\n\t\t Master’s  degree and Doctorate in the subject\tcon-
\n\t\t cerned\t with a good academic record, experience  of
\n\t\t teaching  post-graduate  classes not  less  than  7
\n\t\t years\tand\/or\thaving\tconducted  and\tsuccessfully
\n\t\t guided\t research  work for 7 year’s  in  recognised
\n\t\t institution  and  having  published  work  of\thigh
\n\t\t standard in the subject concerned.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t Preferential:\tHigh academic distinctions.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     The  appellant and( respondent No. 8  were\t the
\n\t\t only  two  candidates who applied for the  post  in
\n\t\t response  to the advertisement.   Their  respective
\n\t\t qualifications are as set out hereunder :–
\n\tS.No. Name\t     Age\t Qualifications & Experience\n<\/p>\n
\t 1. Dr. G. Sarana,  38 years\tH.S. (U. P. Bd) 1949-1 Div.
\n\t Head of Deptt.\t\t\tInter (B.H.U.) 1951-1 Div.
\n\t of Anthropology,\t\tB.A. (L.U.) 1953-I Div.
\n\t Karnatak University,\t\tM.A. (L. U.) 1965-I Div.
\n\t Dharwar.\t\t\tPh. D. (Harvard (U) 1966.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tPublished 28 research papers
\n\t\t\t\t\tand 3 books.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tWorked as :-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t       (1) Temp. Lecturer in Anthro-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tpology L.U. July,   1955-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tApril, 1962.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t(2) Lecturer in\t  Anthropol
\n\t\t\t\t\t ogy Punjab U-April-August,
\n\t\t\t\t\t 1962.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t(3) Visiting  Lecturer-Univ.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t of California at Santa
\n\t\t\t\t\t Barbara-July 1965-June
\n\t\t\t\t\t 1966.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t (4) Karnatak\t    Univer\n\t\t\t\t\t  sity (September  1966 upto\n\t\t\t\t\t  date as Reader and since\n\t\t\t\t\t  27  June 1970)  as  Profes\n\t\t\t\t\t  sor.\n\t66<\/span>\n\tS.No.\tName\t    Age\t\t Qualifications & Experience\n<\/pre>\n
\t2.Dr.K.S. Mathur,  44 years\tH.S. (U. P. Bd) 1944-1 Divn.
\n\tReader and Head of the\t     Inter (U. P. Bd) 1946- I Divn.
\n\tDeptt. of Anthropology,\t\tB. Com (L. U.) 1950- I Divn.
\n\tLucknow University.\t       Ph.D. (Australian National U)
\n\t\t\t\t       1960.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t      Published several research
\n\t\t\t\t      papers,
\n\t\t\t\t      Worked as:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t      (1) Lecturer  in\tAnthropology
\n\t\t\t\t      L.U.-1951-64.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t      (2)Reader in Anthropology
\n\t\t\t\t       L.U. – 1964-continuing
\n\t\t\t\t       (3) Sociologist-\t National
\n\t\t\t\t\tCouncil of Appl. Economic
\n\t\t\t\t\tResearch, New Delhi March’
\n\t\t\t\t\tSeptember-1960.\n<\/p>\n
\t    On February 27, 1974,, a Selection Committee  consisting
\n\tof  Shri A.K.K. Mustafi, Vice-Chancellor of the\t University,
\n\tDr. K.N. Shukla, Dean, Faculty of Arts and Professor &\tHead
\n\tof  the\t Department of Hindi of the  University,  and  three
\n\texperts viz., Dr. S.C. Dube, Dr. S.R.K. Chopra and Dr.\tT.B.
\n\tMayak,\trespondents  3, 4, 5, 6 and 7  respectively  met  to
\n\tinterview the candidates and to make their recommendation to
\n\tthe Executive Council of the University.  After interviewing
\n\tthe  aforesaid two candidates, the Selection  Committee\t re-
\n\tsolved to recommend respondent No. 8 herein for\t appointment
\n\tto the aforesaid post of Professor of Anthropology.
\n\t    On\tcoming to know of the recommendation, the  appellant
\n\tfiled  the  aforesaid  petition ‘under Article\t226  of\t the
\n\tConstitution  challenging the recommendation mainly  on\t the
\n\tground that two out of the aforesaid three experts viz., Dr.
\n\tS.C. Dube and Dr. S.R.K. Chopra were biased against him\t and
\n\tin favour of respondent No. 8.\tIt was alleged by the appel-
\n\tlant that the respondent had close relations with the afore-
\n\tsaid  two. experts as he was instrumental in obtaining\tmany
\n\tremunerative assignments for them.  It was. further  averred
\n\tby the appellant that whenever Dr. Dube visited Lucknow,  he
\n\tstayed\twith respondent No. 8.\tIt was also averred  by\t the
\n\tappellant that Dr. Chopra had strained relations with him on
\n\taccount\t of  straight election contest between him  and\t the
\n\tlatter\tfor  the  office of the\t President  of\tAnthropology
\n\tSection\t of   the Indian Science Congress  for\t19574.\t The
\n\tappellant  further averred that in 1968 when he was  serving
\n\tin the Punjab University as a Lecturer in the Department  of
\n\tAnthropology  headed  by Dr. Chopra, the  latter  stubbornly
\n\topposed\t his application for leave to avail of the offer  of
\n\tfellowship  from Harvard University and\t stopped  forwarding
\n\this salary bills to the Executive, Council with the ulterior
\n\tobject of depriving him of the opportunity to attain  higher
\n\tacademic  qualification and thereby better his future  pros-
\n\tpects  with the result that he was compelled to\t resign\t his
\n\tjob and surrender three months’ salary in lieu of notice  to
\n\tavail of the offer.\n<\/p>\n
\t67<\/span><\/p>\n
\t    The petition was vigorously contested by respondent\t No.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.   On consideration of the material placed before it,\t the
\n\tHigh Court, however, dismissed the application holding\tthat
\n\tthough\trespondent No. 8 was the head of the  department  of
\n\tAnthropology,  he  was not the only person  responsible\t for
\n\tbestowing  various assignments either on Dr. Dube or on\t Dr.
\n\tChopra\tand  that it was the Executive\t Council   and\t the
\n\tAcademic  Council  which were responsible for  giving  those
\n\tassignments to Dr. Dube and Dr. Chopra.\t It was further held
\n\tby the High Court that there was nothing unusual in Dr. Dube
\n\tand  Dr.  Chopra’s knowing and enjoying the  hospitality  of
\n\trespondent No. 8.  The fact that the appellant had an  elec-
\n\ttion contest with Dr. Chopra was also, in the opinion of the
\n\tHigh Court, of no significance, as  such like  contests were
\n\tvery  common and’ it could not be said that Dr.\t Chopra\t had
\n\tdeveloped  such a degree of ill-will and  hostility  against
\n\tthe  appellant\tfor  the latter’s standing  as\ta  candidate
\n\tagainst\t him so as to render him incapable of acting  impar-
\n\ttially\twhen  the task of selecting the best  candidate\t was
\n\tassigned  to  him and that it was not possible\tto.  presume
\n\tthat Dr. Dube and Dr. Chopra were in a position to influence
\n\tthe decision of the entire Selection Committee by  injection
\n\tbias  in  the minds of the other members.   The\t High  Court
\n\tfinally\t held that from the facts relied upon by the  appel-
\n\tlant,  bias  could  not be spelt out.  In  arriving  at\t its
\n\tdecision, the High Court relied upon the following  observa-
\n\ttions  made by Frank, J. of the United States of America  in
\n\tre. Linahan.(1)
\n\t\t       “If,  however,  “bias”  and  “partiality”  be
\n\t\t defined to mean the total absence of preconceptions
\n\t\t in the. mind of the Judge, then no one has ever had
\n\t\t a.  fair  triaL,, and no one ever will.  The  human
\n\t\t mind, even at infancy, is no blank piece of  paper.
\n\t\t We are born with predispositions and the  processes
\n\t\t of education, formal and informal, create attitudes
\n\t\t which\tprecede: reasoning in  particular  instances
\n\t\t and   which,  therefore, by definition, are  preju-
\n\t\t dices.”\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t High  Court  also held that  the  appellant  having
\n\tsubmitted to the jurisdiction of the Selection Committee, he
\n\tcould  not be permitted to turn round and denounce the\tcon-
\n\tstitution of the Committee.\n<\/p>\n
\t    Counsel  for the parties have reiterated before  us\t the
\n\tcontentions  raised  on behalf of their clients\t before\t the
\n\tHigh  Court.  In addition, it has been contended by  counsel
\n\tfor respondent\tNo. 8 that the impugned recommendation being
\n\tin  the nature of an interlocutory proceeding,, neither\t the
\n\twrit  petition\tnor the appeal arising\ttherefrom  could  be
\n\tmaintained.\n<\/p>\n
\t    It\tis  needless  to emphasize that\t the  principles  of
\n\tnatural\t justice which are meant to .prevent miscarriage  of
\n\tjustice are also applicable to domestic enquiries and admin-
\n\tistrative   proceedings\t (See  A.K.  Karipak  v.  Union\t  of
\n\tIndia(2). It cannot also be disputed that one of the  funda-
\n\tmental\tprinciples  of natural justice is that\tin  case  of
\n\tquasi  judicial\t proceedings,  the  authority  empowered  to
\n\tdecide the  dispute\n<\/p>\n
\t(t) [1943], 138F. 2nd 650 at 652.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2)  [1969] 2 S.C.C. 262 :[1970] 1 S.C.R. 457  :A.I.R.\t1970
\n\tS.C. 150.\n<\/p>\n
\t68<\/span><\/p>\n
\tbetween\t opposing parties must be one without bias by  which
\n\tis meant an operative prejudice, whether conscious or uncon-
\n\tscious\ttowards one side or the other in the dispute.\t(See
\n\tNageswara Rao v.A.P. State Road Transport Corporation(1) and
\n\tGullapalli  Nageshwar  Rao  v State of A.P.(2).
\n\t    It\twould be advantageous at this stage to refer to\t the
\n\tfollowing  observations made by this Court in Manak  Lal  v.
\n\tPrem Chand<\/a>(3).\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       “Every member of a tribunal that sits to\t try
\n\t\t issues\t  in judicial or  quasi-judical\t proceedings
\n\t\t must be able to act. judicially; and the essence of
\n\t\t judicial  decisions and judicial administration  is
\n\t\t that  judges  should be able  to  act\timpartially,
\n\t\t objectively  and without any bias.  In\t such  cases
\n\t\t the test is not whether in fact a bias has affected
\n\t\t the judgment; the test always is and must be wheth-
\n\t\t er  a\tlitigant could reasonably apprehend  that  a
\n\t\t bias attributable’to a member of the tribunal might
\n\t\t have operated against him in the final decision  of
\n\t\t the tribunal.\tIt is in this sensethat it is  often
\n\t\t said  that justice must not only be done  but\tmust
\n\t\t also appear to be done.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     Again as held by this Court in A. K.  Karipak’s
\n\t\t case\t(supra),  reiterated in S.  Parthasarthi  v.
\n\t\t State of Andhra Pradesh<\/a>(4) and followed by the High
\n\t\t Court\tof Jarainu & Kashmir in Farooq Ahmed  Pandey
\n\t\t and Ors. v. Principal Regional Engineering  College
\n\t\t & Anr.(5) the real question is not whether a member
\n\t\t of   an  administrative  Board\t  while\t  exercising
\n\t\t quasi-judicial powers or discharging quasi-judicial
\n\t\t functions was biased, for it is difficult to  prove
\n\t\t the  mind  of\ta person.  What has to\tbe  seen  is
\n\t\t whether there is a reasonable ground for  believing
\n\t\t that he was likely to have been biased.  In  decid-
\n\t\t ing  the question of bias, human probabilities\t and
\n\t\t ordinary  course of human conduct have to be  taken
\n\t\t into  consideration.  In a group  deliberation\t and
\n\t\t decision  like that of a Selection Board, the\tmem-
\n\t\t bers  do not function as computers. Each member  of
\n\t\t the  group or board is bound to influence the\toth-
\n\t\t ers,  more so if the member concerned is  a  person
\n\t\t with  special\tknowledge.  His bias  is  likely  to
\n\t\t operate in a subtle manner.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     At\t page 156 of “Principles  of  AdministratiVe
\n\t\t Law”  by  J.A.G.  Griffith and\t H.  Street  (Fourth
\n\t\t Edition), the position with regard to bias is aptly
\n\t\t and succinctly stated as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       “The  prohibition  of  bias  strikes  against
\n\t\t factors  which may improperly influence a judge  in
\n\t\t deciding in favour of one party.  The first of\t the
\n\t\t three\tdisabling types of bias is bias on the\tsub-
\n\t\t ject-matter.  Only rarely will this bias invalidate
\n\t\t proceedings.\t“A  mere  general  interest  in\t the
\n\t\t general object to be pursued would not disqualify,”
\n\t\t said  Field J., holding that a magistrate who\tsub-
\n\t\t scribed to the Royal Society for the Prevention  of
\n\t\t Cruelty to Animals was not thereby disabed
\n\t\t  (1)  [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 319 :A.I.R.  1959\tS.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t 308.
\n\t\t  (2) A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 1376: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 580.
\n\t\t  (3) [1957] S.C.R. 575 :A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 425.
\n\t\t  (4) [1974] S.L.R. 427.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  (5) [1975] J & K.L.R. 427.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t 69<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t from trying a charge brought by that body of cruel-
\n\t\t ty  to a horse.  There must be some direct  connec-
\n\t\t tion with the litigation.  If there is such  preju-
\n\t\t dice,\ton  the subject-matter that ,the  court\t has
\n\t\t reached  fixed\t and  unalterable   conclusions\t not
\n\t\t founded  on reason or understanding, so that  there
\n\t\t is  not a fair hearing, that is bias of  which\t the
\n\t\t courts\t wilt take account, as where a\tjustice\t an-
\n\t\t nounced  his intention of convicting anyone  coming
\n\t\t before\t him on a charge of supplying  liquor  after
\n\t\t the permitted hours  ………..\n<\/p>\n
\t\t Secondly,  a pecuniary interest,  however,   slight
\n\t\t will disqualify, even though it is not proved\tthat
\n\t\t the decision is in any way affected.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       The  third type of bias is personal bias.   A
\n\t\t Judge may be a relative, friend or business associ-
\n\t\t ate of a party, or he may be personally hostile  as
\n\t\t a  result  of\tevents happening  either  before  or
\n\t\t during the course of a trial.\tThe courts have\t not
\n\t\t been  consistent in laying down when bias  of\tthis
\n\t\t type  will.  invalidate a hearing.   The  House  of
\n\t\t Lords in Frome United Brewering v. Bath Justices(1)
\n\t\t approved  an earlier  test of whether “there  is  a
\n\t\t real  likelihood of bias.”  the House of Lords\t has
\n\t\t since\tapproved  a  dictum  of\t  Lord\tHewart\tthat
\n\t\t “justice  should  not\tonly be\t done,,\t but  should
\n\t\t manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”\t al-
\n\t\t though it did not mention another test suggested by
\n\t\t him  in  the same judgment: Nothing is to  be\tdone
\n\t\t which creates even a suspicion that there has\tbeen
\n\t\t an  improper interference with the course  of\tjus-
\n\t\t tice.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     At page 225 of his Treatise on “Judicial Review
\n\t\t of  Administrative Action” (Third  Edition),  Prof.
\n\t\t S.A. De Smith, has stated as follows with regard to
\n\t\t Reports and Preliminary decisions :–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       “The  case-law on the point is thin,  but  on
\n\t\t principle  it\twould seem that where  a  report  or
\n\t\t determination lacking final effect may nevertheless
\n\t\t have  a  seriously judicial effect on\tthe  legally
\n\t\t protected interests of individuals (e.g. when it is
\n\t\t a  necessary  prerequisite of a  final\t order)\t the
\n\t\t person\t making the report or  preliminary  decision
\n\t\t must  not be affected by interest or likelihood  of
\n\t\t bias.”\n<\/p>\n
\t    From the above discussion, it clearly follows that\twhat
\n\thas  to\t be seen in a case where there is an  allegation  of
\n\tbias,  in respect of a member of an administrative Board  or
\n\tbody  is whether there is a reasonable ground for  believing
\n\tthat  he  was likely to have been biased.   In\tother  words
\n\twhether\t there is substantial possibility of bias  animating
\n\tthe mind of the member against the aggrieved party.
\n\t    We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present
\n\tcase  to go into the question of the.reasonableness of\tbias
\n\tor  real  likelihood or bias as despite the fact  that,\t the
\n\tappellant  knew\t all the relevant facts, he did\t not  before
\n\tappearing for the interview or at the time  of the
\n\t(1) [1926] A.C. 586.\n<\/p>\n
\t70<\/span><\/p>\n
\tinterview raise even his little finger against\tthe  consti-
\n\ttution.\t of   the  Selection Committee.\t He  seems  to\thave
\n\tvoluntarily appeared before the Committee and taken a chance
\n\tof having a favourable recommendation from it.\tHaving\tdone
\n\tso,  it is not. now open to him to turn round  and  question
\n\tthe constitution of the Committee.  This view gains strength
\n\tfrom a decision of this Court in Manak Lal’s  case   (Supra)
\n\twhere  in  more or less similar circumstances, it  was\theld
\n\tthat the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea
\n\tat the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective
\n\tbar  of waiver against him. The following observations\tmade
\n\ttherein are worth quoting:—\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       “It  seems dear that the appellant wanted  to
\n\t\t take  a chance to secure a favourable\treport\tfrom
\n\t\t the  tribunal\twhich was constituted  and  when  he
\n\t\t found\tthat he was confronted with an\tunfavourable
\n\t\t report,  he  adopted  the  device  of\traising\t the
\n\t\t present technical point.”\n<\/p>\n
\t    It is also difficult to understand how the writ petition
\n\tor for that matter the present appeal before us is maintain-
\n\table when the recommenlation of the Selection Committee\t has
\n\tstill  to be scrutinzed by the Excutive Council of the\tUni-
\n\tversity\t and  either  accepted or rejected by  t  and  other
\n\tremedies by way of representation to. the Executive  Council
\n\tand an application for reference of the matter under section
\n\t68  of\tthe  Uttar  Pradesh  Universities  (Reenactment\t and
\n\tAmendment) Act, 1974, 0 the Chancellor are still open to the
\n\tappellant and have not been. exmusted.
\n\t    For\t the foregoing reasons, we find ourselves unable  to
\n\tallow  the appeal.  In the result, the appeal fails  and  is
\n\thereby dismissed but in the circumstances of the case  with-
\n\tout any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\tM.R.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\n\tdismissed.\n\t71<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India G. Sarana vs University Of Lucknow & Ors on 28 July, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 2428, 1977 SCR (1) 64 Author: J Singh Bench: Singh, Jaswant PETITIONER: G. SARANA Vs. RESPONDENT: UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT28\/07\/1976 BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT RAY, A.N. (CJ) BEG, M. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-155450","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nG. Sarana vs University Of Lucknow & Ors on 28 July, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G. Sarana vs University Of Lucknow & Ors on 28 July, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1976-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-04T17:45:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G. Sarana vs University Of Lucknow & Ors on 28 July, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-04T17:45:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976\"},\"wordCount\":2603,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976\",\"name\":\"G. Sarana vs University Of Lucknow & Ors on 28 July, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-04T17:45:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G. Sarana vs University Of Lucknow & Ors on 28 July, 1976\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"G. Sarana vs University Of Lucknow & Ors on 28 July, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G. Sarana vs University Of Lucknow & Ors on 28 July, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-04T17:45:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G. Sarana vs University Of Lucknow & Ors on 28 July, 1976","datePublished":"1976-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-04T17:45:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976"},"wordCount":2603,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976","name":"G. Sarana vs University Of Lucknow & Ors on 28 July, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-04T17:45:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sarana-vs-university-of-lucknow-ors-on-28-july-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G. Sarana vs University Of Lucknow & Ors on 28 July, 1976"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155450","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=155450"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155450\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155450"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155450"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155450"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}