Madras High Court
S.Rathinapandian vs The Secretary on 10 July, 2023
W.A.(MD)No.1237 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD)No.1237 of 2014
S.Rathinapandian ...Appellant
/Vs./
1.The Secretary, O/o. Secretariat,
Educational Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
St.George Fort,
Chepauk, Chennai – 9.
2.The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
3.The Director,
Office of Collegiate Education,
Chennai – 6.
4.K.B.Rangarajan,
Guest Lecturer,
Government Men's Arts College,
Poombukar Kallanai Road,
Kumbakonam,
Thanjavur District. ...Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1237 of 2014
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, to
allow the appeal and set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.9057 of
2009 dated 07.07.2014 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj
For Respondents : Mr.V.Om Prakash (R1 & R3)
Government Advocate
Mr.M.Saravanan (R4)
Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan (R2)
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
We have heard the arguments advanced by Mr.T.Antony Arul
Raj for the appellant / petitioner, Mr.V.Om Prakash, learned Government
Advocate for the respondents 1 and 3, Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned
counsel for the second respondent and Mr.M.Saravanan, learned counsel
for the fourth respondent in both the writ petition and the writ appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1237 of 2014
2. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by his non-selection to the
post of Lecturer - Indian Culture in the Tamil Nadu Collegiate
Educational Service to serve in the Government Arts and Science
Colleges and Colleges of Education.
3. He challenges an order of appointment issued to R4, who
has been holding the post from 2009 onwards, as there is no interim
protection that has been given to the appellant / petitioner pending writ
appeal.
4. The main ground on which the selection of R4 is assailed is
that the interview panel has been biased in their selection. Admittedly,
both the petitioner and R4 were awarded 20 marks, after verification of
their academic credentials, publications and other certificates. In the
interview, R4 was awarded 8 marks as against 5 marks awarded to the
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1237 of 2014
5. According to the writ petitioner, the only reason why R4 has
been awarded more marks than he has is that he was employed in the
same college where three members of the interview panel were also
working. The members constituting the interview panel against whom
bias is alleged are Mr.Anbalagan, Mr.Thangaraju and Mr.Ramalingam.
6. R4, in his counter has specifically denied that
Mr.Ramalingam was a member of the panel at all. That apart, he, while
acceding to the position that he had worked in the same college where
Mr.Anbalagan and Mr.Thangaraju were working, would emphasize that
his selection has been based entirely on his meritorious performance.
7. The counter filed by the Teachers Recruitment Board (R2) is
also categoric on the position that there was no bias or impropriety in the
selection of R4 in preference over the petitioner. These averments are
duly supported by the counter affidavit of R4.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1237 of 2014
8. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to the counter
affidavits of R2 and R4. That apart, and importantly, the petitioner has
not impleaded the constituents of the interview panel as against whom
bias is alleged. Despite the counter affidavit pointing to the non-array of
the members of the Interview panel, no steps have been taken in this
regard pending writ petition or even writ appeal. There is thus no
occasion for the Court to consider the allegation of personal bias in
absence of the individuals having been arrayed as parties.
9. The appellant relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of N.K.Bajpai vs. Union of India and Another (2012 (4)
SCC 653). The question of bias was considered by the Court in the
context of whether it would be appropriate for former members of the
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to appear before that
Tribunal upon their demitting office. In that context, at para 48, the
Bench states as follows:
“48. Bias must be shown to be present.
Probability of bias, possibility of bias and
reasonable suspicion that bias might have affected
the decision are terms of different connotations. They
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1237 of 2014
broadly fall under two categories i.e. suspicion of
bias and likelihood of bias. Likelihood of bias would
be the possibility of bias and bias which can be
shown to be present, while suspicion of bias would
be the probability or reasonable suspicion of bias.
The former lead to vitiation of action, while the latter
could hardly be the foundation for further
examination of action with reference to the facts and
circumstances of a given case. The correct test would
be to examine whether there appears to be a real
danger of bias or whether there is only a probability
or even a preponderance of probability of such bias,
in the circumstances of a given case. If it falls in the
prior category, the decision would attract judicial
chastisement but if it falls in the latter, it would
hardly affect the decision, much less adversely.”
10. On a perusal of the above judgment, particularly para 48,
we are of the view that the observations and conclusions would support
the stand of the respondents rather than that of the appellant. The
conclusion is categoric to the effect that bias has to be established
beyond all reasonable doubt.
11. The learned Single Judge has considered the position that
two members of the Panel were employed in the same Institution as R4
coming to the conclusion that, that by itself, would not lead to bias on
their part. We agree.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1237 of 2014
12. In the light of the discussion above, we see no cause or
justification to intervene in the order of the learned Judge and confirm
the same. This Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
10.07.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
sm
TO:
1.The Secretary, O/o. Secretariat,
Educational Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
St.George Fort, Chepauk, Chennai – 9.
2.The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
3.The Director,
Office of Collegiate Education,
Chennai – 6.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1237 of 2014
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
sm
Judgment made in
W.A.(MD)No.1237 of 2014
Dated:
10.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
