JASWANT SINGH - (1.) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and other dated 31/03/1975, of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Writ Petition No. 405 of 1974 filed by the appellant challenging the recommendation made by a Selection Committee of the Lucknow University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') for appointment of respondent No. 8 as Professor of Anthropology in the Faculty of Arts of the University.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are : Towards the end of the year 1973, the University put up an advertisement inviting applications from candidates possessing the following qualifications to fill up a vacant post of Professor of Anthropology:- "Essential : First or high second class Master's degree and Doctorate in the subject concerned with a good academic record, experience of teaching post-graduate classes for not less than 7 years and/or having conducted and successfully guided research work of 7 years in recognised institution and having published work of high standard in the subject concerned. Preferential : High academic distinction." 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 :- On 27/02/1974, a Selection Committee consisting of Shri A. K. K. Mustafi, Vice- Chancellor of the University, Dr. K. N. Shukla, Dean, Faculty of Arts and Professor and Head of the Department of Hindi of the University, and three experts viz., Dr. S. C. Dube, Dr. S. R. K. Chopra and Dr. T. B. Nayak, respondents 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively met to interview the candidates and to make their recommendation to the JUDGEMENT_585_3_1976Html1.htm Executive Council of the University. After interviewing the aforesaid two candidates, the Selection Committee resolved to recommend respondent No. 8 herein for appointment to the aforesaid post of Professor of Anthropology.
(3.) ON coming to know of the recommendation, the appellant filed the aforesaid petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the recommendation mainly on the ground that two out of the aforesaid three experts viz., Dr. S. C. Dube and against him in favour of respondent No. 8. It was alleged by the appellant that the respondent had close relations with the aforesaid two experts as he was instrumental in obtaining many remunerative assignments for them. It was further averred by the appellant that whenever Dr. Dube visited Lucknow, he stayed with respondent No. 8. It was also averred by the appellant that Dr. Chopra had strained relations with him on account of straight election contest between him and the latter for the office of the President of Anthropology Section of the Indian Science Congress for 1974. The appellant further averred that in 1968 when he was serving in the Punjab University as a Lecturer in the Department of Anthropology headed by Dr. Chopra, the latter stubbornly opposed his application for leave to avail of the offer of fellowship from Harvard University and stopped forwarding his salary 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 degree of ill-will and hostility against the appellant for the latter's standing as a candidate against him so as to render him incapable of acting impartially when the task of selecting the best candidate was assigned to him and that it was not possible to presume that Dr. Dube and Dr. Chopra were in a position to influence the decision of the entire Selection Committee by injecting bias in the minds of the other members. The High Court finally held that from the facts relied upon by the appellant, bias could not be spelt out. In arriving at its decision, the High Court relied upon the following observations made by Frank, J. of the United States of America in re, Linahan, (1943)138 F. 2nd 650 :- "If, however, "bias" and "partiality" be defined to mean the total absence of preconceptions in the mind of the Judge, then no one has ever had a fair trial, and no one ever will. The human mind, even at infancy, is no blank piece of paper. We are born with predispositions and the processes of education, formal and informal, create attitudes which precede reasoning in particular instances and which, therefore, by definition, are prejudices." ;