LexUTKAL UNIVERSITY ETC. versus DR. NRUSINGHA CHARAN SARANGI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I>"'-
/
UTKAL UNIVERSITY ETC.
A
v.
DR. NRUSINGHA CHARAN SARANGI AND ORS.
JANUARY 7, 1999
[MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.)
B
Se1Vice Law-University-Appointment to the post of Reader-Selec-
tion-Writ challenging selection by unsuccessful candidate-High Cowt setting
aside the selection 011 the ground that (i) Degree of D. Litt. acquired by
unsuccessful candidate not taken into account (ii) A member of Selection
C
Committee was biased in favour of a candidate selected-Appeal by Univer-
sity-Judgment of High Cowt set aside.
Locus standi--University-Reader-:--Appointment of-Selection-Locus
standi of unsuccessful candidate to challenge selection.
Jashbhai Motibhai Desai v.Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors.,
[1976] 3 SCR 58, referred to.
University-Appointment to the post of Reader-Candidate acquiring
D
D. Litt. Degree after submitting the application but before inte1View
date-Held there was nothing wrong in the Selection Committee in not taking E
this qualification into account.
Bias-{fniversity--Reader-Appointment of-Selection Commit-
tee-Member-Specific personal interest in the selection of a candidate-Al-
legation of-Held allegation of bias must be carefully examined before setting
F
aside the selection-Selection should not be set aside unless there is adequate
mate1ial indicating strong likelihood of bias-The mere fact that the expert as
well as one of the candidates were members of the same organisation and
connected with the magazine brought out by it held not sufficient to come to
a conclusion that the selector had a specific personal interest in the selection G
of that candidate.
Bias-Waiver-Selection Committee-Unsuccessful candidate appear-
ing before Selection Committee-No objection taken to the composition of
Selection Committee-Objection taken only after selection--Held this would
amount to waiver of objection.
19
H
20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1999) 1 S.C.R.
A
G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1977] 1 SCR 64 and U.D.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
Lama & Ors. v. State of Sikkim & Ors., (1997] 1 SCC 111, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3236 of
1995 Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9 .3.94 of the Orissa High Court
in 0.J.C. No. 2342 of 1990.
Vinoo Bhagat for the Appellant in C.A. No. 3236/95.
Ranjit Kumar, and Ms. Anu Mohla for the Appellant in C.A. No.
3237/95.
A.P. Medh, (NP) for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The appellant-Utkal University issued an advertisement inviting ap-
plications, inter alia, for the post of Reader in Oriya. The advertisement
was dated 10.11.1989. The last date for submitting the applications was
originally 11.12.1989 which was subsequently extended to 12.3.1990. 37
candidates applied for the post of Reader in Oriya. Out of these, 33
candidates were called for interview and 23 appeared at the interview
which was held by the Selection Committee on 22.6.1990. The Selection
Committee consisted of Mr. T. Pradhan, Vice Chancellor, Dr. G.P. Guru,
the nominee of the Director of Higher Education and three experts, Dr.
K.B. Tripathy, Dr. K. Mohapatra and Dr. J.B. Mohanty. The minutes of
the Selection Committee of that date record that,
"Taking into consideration the academic record, teaching ex-
perience, research activities, teaching experience of the candidates
and their performance at the interview, the Committee recoin-
mends in order of preference:-
(1) Dr. Surendranath Dash
(2) Dr. Bijay Kumar Mohanty
for appointment as Reader for the Post Graduate· Department of
Oriya."
_.
"'
.>(
; ..
UTKAL UNIVERSITYv. DR. N.C. SARANGI
21
The Syndicate of the University accepted the recommendation of the A
Selection Committee to appoint Dr. Surendranath Dash as Reader in Oriya
at the meeting of the Syndicate held on 13.7.1990. Dr. Surendranath Dash
was accordingly appointed reader in Oriya.
In the meanwhile, respondent No. 1, Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi,
who was one of the candidates for the post, filed a writ petition in the High
Court challenging the se~ection so made. In his writ petition, he challenged
the constitution of the Selection Committee on the ground that the three
experts on the Committee were not from outside the State of Orissa. He
also contended that after the expiry of the last date for submitting applica-
tions but before the interview, he had acquired D. Litt Degree. However,
no marks had been given to him ·by the SelectionExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.