Supreme Court: Biased authors compromised selection process, guidelines set for future selections

The Supreme Court held that the presence of biased author-members on the Assessment Sub-Committee compromised the selection process. It allowed procedural changes by the State Government due to exigencies but emphasized the need for fairness. The Court rejected the doctrine of necessity for government officials on the committee with vested interests. No relief was granted for already distributed books, but guidelines were established for future selections, including barring authors from participating in the selection process and ensuring impartial committee composition. The State was directed to implement these guidelines for future book selections.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Bias in the selection of books.
2. Procedural changes for the selection of books due to exigencies.
3. Role and influence of the Assessment Sub-Committee.
4. Doctrine of necessity in the presence of government officials.
5. Relief for books already purchased and distributed.

Summary:

1. Bias in the Selection of Books:
The appellants argued that some members of the Assessment Sub-Committee were biased as they had submitted their own books for selection. The Supreme Court emphasized the principle "Nemo judex in causa sua" (no man shall be a judge in his own cause), stating that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done. The Court found that the presence of authors on the committee who had submitted their books for selection could lead to actual or perceived bias, which is impermissible. The Court rejected the High Court's reasoning that participation in the selection process waived the right to challenge bias.

2. Procedural Changes for the Selection of Books Due to Exigencies:
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that given the exigency of the situation, the State Government's deviation from the usual procedure for selecting books was justified. The Central Government's grant had to be utilized within a specific timeframe, necessitating a quicker selection process. The Court noted that the usual procedure was administrative, not statutory, and could be altered by the State Government.

3. Role and Influence of the Assessment Sub-Committee:
The Supreme Court held that the influence of author-members on the Assessment Sub-Committee could not be overlooked. The Court noted the potential for subtle influence or quid pro quo arrangements among members, which could compromise the integrity of the selection process. The Court emphasized that the possibility of bias, rather than actual bias, was sufficient to disqualify an author-member from participating in the selection process.

4. Doctrine of Necessity in the Presence of Government Officials:
The High Court had applied the doctrine of necessity to justify the presence of government officials on the committee, even if they had submitted books for selection. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the doctrine of necessity did not apply as there were alternatives, such as appointing substitutes or requiring resignations from interested members.

5. Relief for Books Already Purchased and Distributed:
The Supreme Court acknowledged that no relief could be granted for books selected and purchased for the years 1980, 1981, and 1982, as well as those purchased from the Central Government grant, as they had already been distributed. The Court focused on laying down guidelines for future selections to prevent similar issues.

Guidelines for Future Selections:
The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines to ensure fairness and impartiality in the selection of books for educational institutions:
1. Committees should include both government officials and eminent non-official members, appointed based on merit.
2. Members whose books are submitted for selection must resign or be replaced.
3. Publishers or their representatives should not be members of the committee or participate in its deliberations.

The Court directed the State of Orissa to amend its Government Resolution or issue a fresh notification incorporating these guidelines before the next selection of books. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

---