TMI Blog1976 (7) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second class Master s degree and Doctorate in the subject concerned with a good academic record, experience of teaching post-graduate classes not less than 7 years and/or having conducted and successfully guided research work for 7 year s in recognised institution and having published work of high standard in the subject 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 respective qualifications are as set out hereunder :-- S.No. Name Age Qualifications Experience 1. Dr. G. Sarana, 38 years H.S. (U. P. Bd) 1949-1 Div. Head of Deptt. Inter (B.H.U.) 1951-1 Div. of Anthropology, B.A. (L.U.) 1953-I Div. Karnatak University, M.A. (L. U.) 1965-I Div. Dharwar. Ph. D. (Harvard (U) 1966. Published 28 research papers and 3 books. Worked as :- (1) Temp. Lecturer in Anthropology L.U. July, 1955- April, 1962. (2) Lecturer in Anthropol ogy Punjab U-April-August, 1962. (3) Visiting Lecturer-Univ. of California at Santa Barbara-July 1965-June 1966. (4) Karnatak Univer sity (September 1966 upto date as Reade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bills to the Executive, Council with 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. The petition was vigorously contested by respondent No. 8. On consideration of the material placed before it, the High Court, however, 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 either 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 knowing 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 developed such a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .A.P. State Road Transport Corporation([1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 319 :A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 308.) and Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao v State of A.P.(A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 1376: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 580.). It would be advantageous at this stage to refer to the following observations made by this Court in Manak Lal v. Prem Chand( [1957] S.C.R. 575 :A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 425.). Every member of a tribunal that sits to try issues in judicial or quasi-judical proceedings must be able to act. judicially; and the essence of judicial decisions and judicial administration is that judges should be able to act impartially, objectively and without any bias. In such cases the test is not whether in fact a bias has affected the judgment; the test always is and must be whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias attributable to a member of the tribunal might have operated against him in the final decision of the tribunal. It is in this sensethat it is often said that justice 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), reiterated in S. Parthasarthi v. State of Andhra Pradesh([1974] S.L.R. 427.) and followed by the High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or during the course of a trial. The courts have not been consistent in laying down when bias of this type will. invalidate a hearing. The House of Lords in Frome United Brewering v. Bath Justices([1926] A.C. 586.) approved an earlier test of whether there is a real likelihood of bias. the House of Lords has since approved a dictum of Lord Hewart that justice should not only be done,, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done although it did not mention 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 thin, but on principle it would seem that where a report or determination lacking final effect may nevertheless have a seriously 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 no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
