Orissa High Court
Dr. Nursingha Charan Sarangi vs State Of Odisha And Others on 11 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO. 9100 OF 2022
In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
.....
Dr. Nursingha Charan Sarangi ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others ...... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared in these cases:
For Petitioner : M/s. Sameer Kumar Das,
P.K. Behera & N. Jena
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Swayambhu Mishra,
Additional Standing Counsel
(For Opp. Party Nos.1 & 2)
M/s. B.P. Tripathy, S.R. Pati
& Ramdas Achary
(For Opp. Party No.3)
M/s. Kshirod Kumar Rout,
J. Naik, S.K. Rout,
S.K. Bhuyan & A. Jamal
(For Opp. Party No. 4)
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUDGMENT
11th , September, 2023
K.R. Mohapatra, J.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to quash and set aside
the appointment/nomination of Opposite Party No.3, namely, Prof.
Udayanath Sahu, as a member of selection committee for the purpose of
conferring 'Vyasakabi Fakirmohan Odia Bhasa Samman-2020' (for
// 2 //
brevity 'the Award') and direct the State Government and its authorities
to publish the decision of selection committee taken earlier for
conferment of the Award. In the alternative, the Petitioner prayed for
constitution of a new selection committee and to confer the award
within a stipulated period.
3. Factual backdrop of the case is that pursuant to an
advertisement issued by the Government of Odisha on 18th December,
2020 (Annexure-1) for conferment of the Award, the Petitioner and
Opposite Party No.4 along with others submitted their applications in
the prescribed format. On receipt of the applications, the Government
of Odisha constituted a selection committee.
4. Grievance of the Petitioner in this writ petition is with regard
to nomination of Opposite Party No.3, namely, Prof. Udayanath Sahu,
as a member of selection committee. It is his allegation that the
Opposite Party No.3 is a life member of 'Utkal Sahitya Samaj'-
Opposite Party No.4, who has been conferred with the award. The
Opposite Party No.3 should not have been the judge of his own cause.
Thus, the entire selection process for conferment of the award is
vitiated.
5. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
although several grounds have been taken in the writ petition, but the
Petitioner confines its case only on the ground as stated above. It is
submitted that initially four eminent persons in the field of Odia
language and literature were nominated to be the members of selection
committee. However, two of such members of selection committee,
namely, Dr. Sitakanta Mohapatra and Dr. Rama Chandra Behera, did
not want to continue as such. Thus, two other members, namely, Prof.
Udayanath Sahu (Opposite Party No.3) and Shri Alekha Charan
// 3 //
Padihari, were nominated in their place, which is clear from the letter
dated 8th December, 2021 (Annexure-6) issued by the Director and
Additional Secretary in the Department of Odia Language Literature
and Culture, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar. Subsequently, Dr.
Rajkishore Mishra also opted out from the selection committee. Again,
Dr. Shanghamitra Mishra, also expressed her inability to continue in the
selection committee. However, Prof. Udayanath Sahu-Opposite Party
No.3 and Shri Alekha Charan Padihari continued to be the members of
the said selection committee.
6. When the matter stood thus, the Petitioner received a caveat
petition issued by learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.4,
namely, Utkal Sahitya Samaj. After going through the caveat petition,
more particularly the averments made in para-4 of the said petition, the
Petitioner came to learn that Utkal Sahitya Samaj-Opposite Party No.4
has been selected to receive the award. Mr. Das, learned counsel also
referred to paragraph-4 of the caveat petition (Annexure-8), which
reads as under:
"4. That, for the year 2021, as learnt, the Govt. in
Department of Odia language, literature & culture has
selected "Utkal Sahitya Samaj", a century old and the
premier literary organization of the State of Odisha to
be honoured with such award".
7. As such, the Petitioner enquired about the matter and surprised
to learn that the Opposite Party No.4, namely, Utkal Sahitya Samaj, was
aware of the result even before the award was officially declared. It is
submitted that the Opposite Party No.3 being the life member of
Opposite Party No.4 must have disclosed the same to it.
8. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 in
their counter affidavit have specifically averred that the Government
// 4 //
had no knowledge that Prof. Udayanath Sahu (Opposite Party No.3)
was the life member of Utkal Sahitya Samaj-Opposite Party No.4. It
was also stated in their counter affidavit that had it been known to the
Government, constitution of the committee would have been changed.
However, the State Government in order to save their scheme and
defend their action has averred that the Opposite Party No.3 was not an
applicant for the award and he was not the sole member of the selection
committee.
9. Since undisputedly the Opposite Party No.3 was a life member
of Opposite Party No.4-Utkal Sahitya Samaj, the entire selection
process is vitiated and became void. Law is well settled that 'one
cannot be a judge of his own cause'. As such, participation of Opposite
Party No.3 in the process of selection of the award vitiates the entire
proceeding.
10. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner also relied upon the
decision in the case of A.K. Kraipak and others -v- Union of India and
others, reported in AIR 1970 SC 150, wherein it is held that one cannot
be the judge of his own cause, as there is a reasonable likelihood of
bias. But, unfortunately the Opposite Party No.3 suppressed the same
to the State Government. Only after filing of the writ petition, the State
Government became aware of such fact. It is his submission that
although the award was made public by the State Government only on
19th April, 2022, but the Opposite Party No.4-awardee made it public
on 24th January, 2022 by filing a caveat petition.
11. The Petitioner also relied upon the case of Dr. Priyaranjan
Maral and others -v- State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.39640
of 2021 disposed of on 11th July, 2022) stating that an identical issue
came up for consideration therein with regard to selection of Assistant
// 5 //
Professor by the O.P.S.C., where the Ph.D guides of some of the
selected candidates were the subject experts. Considering the matter in
detail, this Court set aside the selection process.
12. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted
that initially it was decided to confer the award in favour of the
Petitioner and one Antaryami Mishra jointly, but, for the reasons best
known, such a decision was altered and the Opposite Party No.4 was
conferred with the award. He, therefore, submits that the entire
selection process for conferment of the award is vitiated and is not
sustainable. Hence, the same should be set aside. He also referring to
Annexure-A/2 of the counter affidavit filed by the State Government
submitted that the Petitioner along with Shri Antaryami Mishra should
be jointly conferred with the award.
13. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing
for Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 made a detail submission on the basis of
the counter affidavit filed by the State Government. He has also
produced photocopies of the relevant records of the selection process
for conferment of the award in a sealed cover for perusal of the Court.
It is his submission that the State Government had no knowledge of the
fact that the Opposite Party No.3 is a life member of Opposite Party
No.4. Opposite Party No.3 never disclosed the same. However,
Opposite Party No.3 was not the sole member of the selection
committee. There were other three members in the selection committee,
which unanimously selected the Opposite Party No.4 to be the recipient
of the award. It is further submitted that no individual member had the
opportunity to influence the collective decision of the committee. It can
also be verified from the record produced before the Court. Previously,
the selection committee recommended that the award should be
// 6 //
conferred on two individuals including the Petitioner which did not
include the Opposite Party No.4. But the said recommendation was
turned down by the State Government. There is also no material on
record to arrive at a conclusion that the Opposite Party No.3 has
influenced the decision of the selection committee.
14. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel also made
elaborate submission with regard to competency of the members of the
selection committee and their backgrounds on Odia language, literature
and culture. It is also submitted that the Petitioner along with one Shri
Antaryami Mishra were recommended by the selection committee for
conferment of the award jointly. However, the Government in Odia
Language, Literature and Culture Department desired that it should be
given either to one individual or to one institution instead of awarding it
jointly. Therefore, the selection committee again met on 19th January,
2022. Although the Petitioner was aware of the fact that Utkal Sahitya
Samaj-Opposite Party No.4 is an applicant for the award and Opposite
Party No.3 is a life member of said Opposite Party No.4, but he neither
objected to the same nor disclosed it at any time before filing of this
writ petition. Rather the Petitioner participated in the selection process.
Hence, he cannot challenge the result thereof being not selected for the
award. It is further submitted that apart from two non-official members,
namely, Prof. Udayanath Sahu-Opposite Party No.3 and Shri Alekh
Charan Padihari, there were two other official members in the said
committee, namely, Additional Chief Secretary to Government and
Director-cum-Additional Secretary to Government in the Department of
Odia Language, Literature and Culture, Odisha, Bhubaneswar to have a
fair selection. Thus, there was no requirement to select any other
member for that purpose, as alleged by the Petitioner.
// 7 //
15. In support of his contention, Mr. Mishra, learned Additional
Standing Counsel relied upon the decision in the case of Utkal
University -v- Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and others, reported
in (1999) 2 SCC 193 in which it is held as under:
"10. What is more, we fail to see how on account of one of
the experts being a member of an organization or being on
the Editorial Board of a magazine brought out by that
organization, he would necessarily be favourably inclined
towards the Editor of that magazine. There is no allegation
of any personal relationship between the member of the
Selection Committee and the candidate. Not unnaturally,
the member concerned of the Selection Committee has
taken strong exception to the charge of bias. In his letter
addressed to the University dated 10-5-1994, he has
pointed out that he was, in fact, more closely connected
with the first respondent, Dr Nrusingha Charan Sarangi
than the selected candidate. He has pointed out that the
first respondent hails from his native place, belongs to the
family of his priest and the first respondent has dedicated
his book to the said member. All this is prior to the said
interview. He has also pointed out that he agreed to be
associated with the said Shri Jagannath Gabesana
Parishad only because his teacher is one of its founders.
Another expert on the Selection Committee, Dr J.B.
Mohanty, has also addressed a letter dated 21-1-1994 to
the University pointing out that the selected candidate was
selected on merit after taking into consideration his
academic record, Honours teaching experience, research
activities and performance at the interview. The first
respondent, although he was given time to file a counter-
affidavit here after all these documents were disclosed, has
not filed any reply. Allegations of bias must be carefully
examined before any selection can be set aside. In the first
place, it is the joint responsibility of the entire Selection
Committee to select a candidate who is suitable for the
post. When experts are appointed to the Committee for
selection, the selection should not be lightly set aside
unless there is adequate material which would indicate a
strong likelihood of bias or show that any member of the
Selection Committee had a direct personal interest in
appointing any particular candidate. The expert in
question, in the present case, had no personal interest in
the selection of any particular candidate. It is not even
// 8 //
alleged by the first respondent that he had any such
personal interest in the selection of the candidate who was
selected. The mere fact that the expert as well as one of the
candidates were members of the same organization and
connected with the magazine brought out by it would not
be sufficient, in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, to come to a conclusion that the selector had a
specific personal interest in the selection of that candidate.
The experts, in the present case, are experts in the Oriya
language and are men of stature in their field. The
candidates who would be considered for selection by the
Selection Committee would also be candidates who have
some stature or standing in the Oriya language and
literature, looking to the nature of the post. Any literary
association in this context, or any knowledge about the
literary activities of the candidates would not, therefore,
necessarily lead to a conclusion of bias. Looking to the
circumstances of the present case, it is not possible to come
to a conclusion that the Selection Committee was biased in
favour of the candidate selected."
(Underlined for emphasis)
16. The Petitioner herein was the first Respondent in the said case.
Thus, only because the Opposite Party No.3 is a life member of
Opposite Party No.4, it would not ipso facto be construed that he had
influenced the selection process for the award. He, therefore, prays for
dismissal of the writ petition.
17. Mr. Rout, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.4 submits that
the Petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the selection process.
There is no averment in the writ petition to come to a conclusion that
had the Opposite Party No.3 been not there in the selection committee,
the Petitioner would have been selected for the award. He further
submits that the Petitioner being aware of the fact that the Opposite
Party No.4 is an applicant and the Opposite Party No.3 is a life member
of said Opposite Party No.4 (Utkal Sahitya Samaj), did not raise any
objection at any point of time during the entire selection process. Being
unsuccessful in the selection process for the award, he has come up
// 9 //
with the present writ petition. As such, he being a fence-sitter has no
locus standi to challenge the selection process. In support of his case,
he relied upon the decision in the case of Dr. G. Sarana -v- University
of Lucknow and others, reported in AIR 1976 SC 2428. He also
relying upon the case law of Utkal University (supra) submitted that
allegation of bias must be carefully examined before any selection is set
aside. In the first place, it is the joint responsibilities of the entire
selection committee to select a suitable candidate for the purpose it is
constituted so that the selection is not lightly set aside. Unless there is
adequate material which would indicate a strong likelihood of bias or it
reflects that any member of the selection committee had a direct
personal interest, the selection process should not be interfered with.
Mere fact that one of the members of the selection committee was the
life member of selected institution, would not be sufficient to come to
the conclusion that the selector had a specific personal interest in the
selection of that institution. It is his submission that the Petitioner was
all throughout vigilant about the selection process. He had also tried to
influence the selection committee with lewd and sarcastic remarks in
the social media. Having failed in all his attempts, the Petitioner has
tried to utilize the judicial process for his vested interest. As such, the
writ petition is not bona fide and is liable to be dismissed with cost.
18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials
placed before this Court.
19. As submitted by Mr. Das, learned counsel, Petitioner assails
the selection process on the sole ground that a person cannot be the
judge of his own cause. In support of his case, he also relied upon the
ratio in the case of A.K. Kraipak and others (supra).
// 10 //
20. On a close reading of the writ petition along with written note
of submission filed by the Petitioner, it clearly reveals that the
Petitioner took exception to the fact that the Opposite Party No.3 being
a life member of Opposite Party No.4-Utkal Sahitya Samaj, should not
have been part of the selection committee. He has also stated that the
Government of Odisha was in dark about the fact that he is a life
member of the organization (Opposite Party No.4-Utkal Sahitya
Samaj), who was also the applicant and recipient of the award. He also
brought to the notice of the Court to the averments made in the counter
affidavit stating that had this fact known to the State Government, it
would not have nominated the Opposite Party No.3 as a member of the
selection Committee. It is his submission that the same is sacrosanct to
hold that the Opposite Party No.3 should not have been a part of the
selection process.
21. There is, of course, no material on record to show that the
Opposite Party No.3 has shown any favour to Opposite Party No.4 in
the entire selection process. It reveals from the record that initially the
names of the Petitioner along with one Shri Antaryami Mishra were
recommended for the award. However, the Government of Odisha did
not accept the same and suggested that it should be given one individual
or one institution. As would appear from the minutes of the selection
committee dated 19th January, 2022 (Annexure-A/2) that the Opposite
Party No.3 suggested that since during last two years, institutions were
being selected for the award, it should be conferred on individual.
Keeping in mind the suggestion made by the Opposite Party No.3,
applications of five institutions and nine individuals were scrutinized
and the names of the Petitioner and Shri Antaryami Mishra were
recommended for the award. When recommendation made by the
// 11 //
selection committee was not accepted, the matter was again placed
before the selection committee and one of the members, namely, Dr.
Alekha Charan Padihari, suggested that since there are instances of joint
conferment of the award on individuals, the Government should be
requested to reconsider its decision. But the said suggestion was
objected to by the Additional Chief Secretary, who was also a member
of the selection committee, stating that examples of other institutions
cannot be a ground to request the Government to reconsider the
decision. Then Dr. Padhihari suggested conferring the award to an
eminent organization/institution. Thereafter, the selection committee
unanimously recommended the name of Opposite Party No.4-Utkal
Sahitya Samaj for the award stating that since the institution was
established in the year, 1903; Vyasakabi Fakir Mohan had been the
President of the said institution on two occasions; the institution has
published three books on Vyasakabi Fakir Mohan and two books on
literature and language and forty books on other subjects of Odia
language. From the minutes of the meeting of the selection committee
dated 19th January, 2022 (Annexure-A/2), it clearly establishes that the
Opposite Party No.3 had not at all influenced the selection committee to
recommend the name of Opposite Party No.4 for the award. On the
other hand, the name of Opposite Party No.4 was recommended
unanimously on the basis of its own literary contribution including its
contribution on the publication of books on Vyasakabi Fakir Mohan
and its contribution to the Odia language.
22. There can be no quarrel or the question on the ratio decided in
the cases of A.K. Kraipak and others (supra) and Dr. Priyaranjan
Maral and others (supra) of this Court. The principles decided in those
cases are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the said case and
// 12 //
are of no assistance to the case of the Petitioner. The case law in Utkal
University (supra) is apt to the instant case. It has discussed the case
law on the issue of bias more vividly and held that when experts are
appointed to the Committee for selection, the selection should not be
lightly set aside unless there is adequate material which would indicate
a strong likelihood of bias or show that any member of the Selection
Committee had a direct personal interest in appointing any particular
member. In the instant case, there is no iota of material to show that
the Opposite Party No.3 had any personal interest for conferment of the
award of Opposite Party No.4 or he has shown any favour for
conferment of such award. There is also no allegation to that effect.
Only because the Opposite Party No.3 was a life member of Opposite
Party No.4, which is a premier organization of Odia language and has
large number of eminent persons having interest in Odia literature,
language and culture as its member, it cannot be said that the Opposite
Party No.3 has influenced the selection committee for conferment of the
award to Opposite Party No.4. As discussed above, from the minutes of
the selection committee dated 19th January, 2022 (Annexure-A/2 to the
counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2), it is crystal clear
that the Opposite Party No.3 was of the opinion that it should be
awarded to two individuals. Thus, at no stretch of imagination, it can
be said that the Opposite Party No.3 has ever influenced or became the
judge of his own cause. Apart from Opposite Party No.3, there were
three other members and the selection committee was chaired by the
Additional Chief Secretary of Odia Language, Literature and Culture
Department, Government of Odisha.
23. In absence of any material or scrap of paper to show that the
Opposite Party No.3 had influenced the selection committee for
// 13 //
conferment of the award, the decision/recommendation of the selection
committee should not be lightly set aside when the selection committee
was manned by the experts in the field.
24. Although the Petitioner alleges that he came to know about the
conferment of the award from the caveat petition, but from the
submission of Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.4, it
appears that the news regarding conferment of the award to Opposite
Party No.4 was published in Odia daily newspaper "The Samaj" on 20th
January, 2022. At the same time, it cannot be brushed aside that the
Petitioner had knowledge about the fact that the Opposite Party No.3
was a member of the selection committee and was a life member of
Opposite Party No.4. The aforesaid fact also gets support from the
statement of the Petitioner in social media, extracts of which have been
annexed to the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party No.4. At no
stage of selection process, the Petitioner had raised any objection to the
same. Thus, the Petitioner having participated and being unsuccessful
in receiving the award has no locus standi to challenge the constitution
of the selection committee.
25. Thus, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
26. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost.
...........................
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Digitally Signed Dated 11 September, 2023/bks
Signed by: BIJAY KUMAR SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 12-Sep-2023 11:17:43
