G.N. NAYAK V. GOA UNIVERSITY, AIR 2002 SC 790
FACTS
- The appellant Dr Nayak, and Respondent 5 were candidates for the post of Professor of Marine Science in University of Goa.
- Sometime before the date of the interview a note was written by Respondent 2 as Head of the Department to the Vice-Chancellor requesting for the holding of an urgent interview for the appointment of Professor, Marine Science. The note extolled the qualities of the appellant and concluded with the following paragraphs:
- “HOD (Head of Department) submits that if Dr Nayak (the appellant) is relieved from this Department, the Department and the University will lose a dedicated and intelligent faculty whose services are very essential for this newly emerged Department and the young Goa University in general at this juncture.”
- Respondent 5 obtained a copy of this note and on 23-8-1995 wrote a letter to the Chancellor as well as to the Vice-Chancellor objecting to the participation of Respondent 2 and the Dean of the Faculty in the selection on the ground that he apprehended that they would be biased against him and that they had in writing disclosed their bias in favour of the appellant.
- Respondent 5 filed a writ application in the High Court in 1995 seeking to stop the participation of Respondent 2 as well the nominee of the Vice-Chancellor in the selection process. The writ petition was withdrawn. But Respondent 2 did not take part in the selection process. The Selection Committee found that neither the appellant nor Respondent 5 were suitable for the post.
- In October 1995, a fresh advertisement was issued for the post. This time, although the essential qualifications as advertised in 1994 remained the same, the additional qualifications were amended so that the specialisation read: “Professor of Marine Science: Specialisation: Any branch of Marine Sciences, namely, Physical Oceanography, Marine Chemistry, Marine Geology or Marine Biology.” This time Respondent 2 participated. The Committee recommended the appointment of the appellant. The appellant’s appointment was accepted by the Executive Council and a formal order appointing the appellant as Professor of Marine Science was issued to him on 8- 6-1996.
- Respondent 5 filed a second writ petition challenging the selection of the appellant. The challenge was upheld by the High Court broadly on the following grounds: (1) the eligibility criteria as advertised for the purpose of selection had been illegally amended in disregard of the provisions of the statutes of the University; (2) the Selection Committee was not legally constituted; (3) no records had been maintained by the Selection Committee as to how the inter se grading was done between the candidates; (4) the selection process was vitiated by bias; (5) the appellant was not qualified and did not possess the essential qualifications as advertised for the post.
ISSUE
Whether the appellant was qualified to have at all been considered for appointment to the post of Professor?
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
According to Respondent 5, the amendment of the qualifications for the post of Professor of Marine Science was illegal. It was contended that under Statute 8, it is the Executive Council which has to prescribe the qualifications after considering the recommendations of the Academic Council. According to Respondent 5, the qualifications which were prescribed in the 1995 advertisement and handout issued to the applicants in connection therewith had not been prescribed by the Executive Council nor recommended by the Academic Council.
PRINCIPLE INVOLVED
Nemo Judex In Causa Sua” signifies the rule against bias.
RATIONALE
- It is not every kind of bias which in law is taken to vitiate an act. It must be a prejudice which is not founded on reason, and actuated by self-interest — whether pecuniary or personal. Because of this element of personal interest, bias is also seen as an extension of the principles of natural justice that no man should be a judge in his own cause. Being a state of mind, a bias is sometimes impossible to determine. Therefore, the courts have evolved the principle that it is sufficient for a litigant to successfully impugn an action by establishing a reasonable possibility of bias or proving circumstances from which the operation of influences affecting a fair assessment of the merits of the case can be inferred.
- There is nothing on the record which shows that the Executive Council had “paired” the experts according to their special field of knowledge. On the contrary, it has not been pointed out how the subjects of Immunology and Biochemistry on the one hand can be paired with Biology and Biochemistry and not with Marine Biology in which Dr Chandramohan is stated to be an expert. If the preferred members were unavailable, the other members approved by the Academic Council and recommended by the Executive Council could be empanelled. There has thus been no violation of Statute 15.
- It is noteworthy that it was not Respondent 5’s case that Respondent 2’s praise of the appellant was unmerited or that Respondent 2 had any extraneous reasons or reason other than the competence of the appellant for selecting the appellant as Professor. We are also not persuaded as the High Court was, to infer bias merely because at the previous selection in September 1995 the appellant was found unsuitable. If the outcome of the previous selection was conclusive as to the non-suitability of the appellant for all times to come, it was conclusive as far as Respondent 5 as well. Yet Respondent 5 applied again because he knew that a reappraisal by a new Selection Committee at a later point of time might yield a different result.
HELD
Accordingly, the Court set aside the decision of the High Court and allowed the appeal.