Public employee as competent authority upheld in principle, but appointment fails where reasonable apprehension of bias is shown.

A public employee may be appointed as competent authority under the Act where the statutory scheme permits the Central Government to authorise any person or authority, and employment by the Corporation alone does not create automatic disqualification or a presumption of bias. However, an appointment will be invalid if the surrounding facts establish a real and reasonable apprehension of prejudice. On the stated material, the particular officer's role as a litigating party and her adverse steps in the dispute justified the challenge, so the appointment failed on bias grounds. The broader proposition that no employee of the Corporation can ever act as competent authority was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an employee of the Corporation could be appointed as competent authority under the Act and whether such appointment was invalid merely because of the employment relationship. (ii) Whether the appointment of the particular officer as competent authority was liable to be quashed on the ground of bias and reasonable apprehension of prejudice.

Issue (i): Whether an employee of the Corporation could be appointed as competent authority under the Act and whether such appointment was invalid merely because of the employment relationship.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permitted the Central Government to authorise any person or authority to discharge the functions of competent authority. The Act did not prohibit appointment of an employee of the Corporation. The competent authority performed diverse functions under the Act, and the first-instance determination of compensation was only one of them. Public employment, by itself, was held insufficient to disqualify the appointee or to attract a presumption of bias.

Conclusion: The mere fact that the competent authority was an employee of the Corporation did not by itself invalidate the appointment.

Issue (ii): Whether the appointment of the particular officer as competent authority was liable to be quashed on the ground of bias and reasonable apprehension of prejudice.

Analysis: The question of bias depended on the surrounding facts and on whether there was a real and reasonable apprehension of prejudice. On the material before the Court, the officer was herself a litigating party in proceedings connected with the very dispute and had taken steps adverse to the respondent. In those circumstances, the respondent's apprehension was held to be well founded. The Court also distinguished the general proposition that an employee of the Corporation is inherently disqualified from acting as competent authority.

Conclusion: The appointment of the particular officer was invalid on the facts because a reasonable apprehension of bias was established.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned appointment succeeded on the facts, but the broader principle that an employee of the Corporation can never act as competent authority was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A public employee is not disqualified from acting as competent authority merely because of employment with the interested public body, but an appointment will fail where the facts establish a real and reasonable apprehension of bias.

---