RAGHAB CHANDRA DESHMUKH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner has challenged the recruitment process on two grounds:-

(2.) It has not been disputed by anyone that the Respondent No. 7 was, in fact, the ex-officio Chairman of the said Selection Committee nor is there any dispute that she is the wife of the Respondent No. 6. There is, however, a defence of confession and avoidance sought to be taken very faintly in the affidavit of the Respondent No. 7. The plea of confession and avoidance is to be found in sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 4 of the affidavit affirmed by one Smt. Sabnam Begum on 28th April, 2005, which reads as follows :-

(3.) There is, however, no definite indication nor any proof as to from which stage she withdrew herself from the selection process. The undisputed fact is that requisition was sent to the employment exchange concerned on 26th December, 1999. Candidates were sponsored on the basis of the aforesaid requisition and written examination was scheduled to be held on 8th July, 2000. The answer scripts were examined prior to 15th September, 2000. On the basis of the result secured by the candidate in the written examination, a list of five candidates was prepared in which the name of the Respondent No. 6 and the petitioner appeared. Thereafter, the Selection Committee met on 15th September, 2000, for the purpose of fixing an oral interview. This meeting was held on 15th September, 2000. From the resolution disclosed by the Respondent No. 7 dated 15th September, 2000, it appears that she did not participate in the deliberation held on 15th September, 2000. Considering the fact that she herself has not disclosed in her affidavit the date from which she refrained from participating in the selection process and considering further that she herself disclosed the resolution dated 15th September, 2000, which goes to show that she was not presiding over the meeting, then it can safely be concluded that she stopped taking part in the selection process on 15th September, 2000. By that time the written examination had been conducted, results had been obtained and a list of five candidates, who had secured marks on the higher side, had been prepared. The submission that she did not participate in the selection process is, therefore, belied by her own statement and the documents disclosed by her. The fact that the Respondent No. 7 was the selector and the fact that her husband, the Respondent No. 6, was the selectee in the ultimate process is enough to vitiate the entire proceedings. It is well settled that a well-founded apprehension of bias is enough and no actual bias need be established because the principle is that justice should not only be done, it should also appear to have been done. This principle was also extended to administrative matters. If any authority is required for the view that I have taken, reference can be made to the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in 1985 (4) SCC 417 Para 18, wherein the following view was expressed.