University appointment challenge fails after candidate waives right to object to selection committee composition

The SC dismissed an appeal challenging a university selection committee's recommendation for Professor of Anthropology appointment based on bias allegations. While the court acknowledged that bias in selection committees operates subtly and requires assessment of reasonable grounds for believing substantial possibility of bias exists, it ruled that the appellant waived his right to challenge the committee's constitution. The appellant had voluntarily appeared before the committee knowing all relevant facts without raising objections during the interview process, creating an effective waiver bar against subsequently questioning the committee's composition.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Bias in the Selection Committee.
2. Maintainability of the writ petition and appeal.

Summary:

Issue 1: Bias in the Selection Committee
The appellant challenged the recommendation of the Selection Committee of Lucknow University for appointing respondent No. 8 as Professor of Anthropology, alleging bias by two experts, Dr. S.C. Dube and Dr. S.R.K. Chopra. The appellant claimed these experts were biased due to personal relations and past conflicts. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating there was no substantial evidence of bias, and the appellant's claims did not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Court emphasized that principles of natural justice require impartiality, but the appellant had voluntarily submitted to the Selection Committee without raising objections initially, thus waiving his right to contest its constitution later.

Issue 2: Maintainability of the Writ Petition and Appeal
The respondent contended that the recommendation was interlocutory and not subject to writ petition or appeal. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had other remedies available, such as representation to the Executive Council and application u/s 68 of the Uttar Pradesh Universities (Reenactment and Amendment) Act, 1974, which had not been exhausted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, reinforcing that the appellant's failure to object to the Selection Committee's constitution at the appropriate time barred him from raising the issue later.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed due to lack of substantial evidence of bias and the appellant's failure to exhaust available remedies, with no order as to costs.

---