G.N. Nayak Vs. Goa University and Ors.

Facts

When the post of professor of Marine Science felt vacant, advertisement was issued but no candidate could be found who fulfilled the essential qualification for the post. Later, an advertisement was again issued for the post and both the appellant and the respondent No. 5 applied for the post. Both of them were Readers in the Department of Marine Science, the respondent No. 5 being senior most. Both were called for interviews after which the selection committee recommended the appointment of the Appellant. The appellant's selection as Professor in a University was challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (COI) by the respondent No. 5 who was himself a candidate for selection to the post.

The challenge was upheld by the High Court on the grounds that the eligibility criteria as advertised for the purpose of selection had been illegally amended in disregard of the provisions of the Status of the University. The Selection Committee was not legally constituted and was vitiated by bias.

Key Takeaways for Students

Legal Issue

Whether appellant's selection as Professor of Marine Science in the University of Goa was vitiated by bias?

Holding

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 principle of nature 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.

In this case, the respondent No. 5 has relied on the note quoted earlier to allege bias against the respondent No. 2. No doubt the respondent No. 2 has, in the note, lavished praise on the performance of the appellant. As the Head of the Department it would be natural that he formed an opinion as to the abilities of the Readers working under him. It is noteworthy that it was not the respondent No. 5's case that the respondent No. 2's praise of the appellant was unmerited or that the respondent No. 2 had any extraneous reasons or reasons other than the competence of the appellant for selecting the appellant's as Professor.

Final Decision Appeal allowed