Holding

The Tribunal erred in finding probable bias without proof and in re‑assessing interview marks; the burden of proving malafide bias lies on the claimant, and the Tribunal's order is set aside.

Summary

The respondent, a Chief Vigilance Inspector, applied for promotion to Assistant Engineer and failed the viva voce interview. He alleged that the Selection Committee was biased because its chairman was allegedly related to a person he had investigated in his vigilance role, and that the committee’s secretary influenced the interview, resulting in an unfair low score. The Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the interview result and ordered a fresh viva voce by a new committee. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal’s conclusion of probable bias was unfounded, that bias must be proved by the claimant, and that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by re‑evaluating the interview marks and directing a new test. Consequently, the Tribunal’s order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in concluding that bias of the Selection Committee was highly probable on the basis of alleged relationships and proximity of the secretary.
Whether the Tribunal had the authority to assess the adequacy of marks awarded in the viva voce and to direct a fresh interview.
Who bears the burden of proving malafide bias in administrative selection processes.
Whether the presumption of good faith in administrative actions applies to the selection procedure.
Whether the Tribunal’s directions violated principles of natural justice and exceeded its jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Subjects

service lawselection committeebiasmalafidepresumption of good faithadministrative lawviva voceCentral Administrative Tribunalburden of proofnatural justice

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA
v.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA AND ANR.
•I

OCTOBER 3, 2001

B [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.]

Service Law :

Interview-Non-selection-Allegation of ma/a.fide-Bias of Sele~tion
Committ~e not proved-Tribunal sitting in Judgment overinterview and allotting
c marks-Correctness of-Held, not correct.

Mala.fide-Allegation of-Burden to prove-Held, is on the person who
alleges-There is always presumptio:i in/avoitr ofadministration that it exercises
powers in good faith and for public benefit~Evidence Act-Presumption.'
D Respondent No.1 having failed in viva voce test conducted by Selection.
Committee, was not selected for the post in question. He flied application
before Central Administrative Tribu_nal alleging malafides against the
Chairman of the Committee, stating that he was closely related to one 'S'
who was placed under suspension pursuant to an inquiry which was
E conducted by Respondent No. 1 when he was in Vigilance Department.
Tribunal on the basis of proximity of Secretary to the Chairman of the
Committee concluded that it was highly probable that the Secretary could
have influenced the Chairman of the Selection Committee again~t
Respondent No. 1 and quashed the result of viva voce test in respect of
Respondent No. 1. It further directed the appellants to subject Respondent
F
No. 1 to a fresh viva voce test. H;ence this appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. The approach of the Tribunal in concluding that it was
highly probable that the Secretary could have influenced the Chairman of
G
the Selection Committee against Respondent No. 1 is fallacious. The Tribunal
ought to have considered the matter in right perspective, and should not
have sat in judgment over the interview and allotted marks on its own and
issued directions in the manner it did. [492-H; 493-F]

H 2. So long as bias of the Selection Committee could not be proved,
488
U.0.1. v. A.K. SRIVASTAVA [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 489
the only aspect that the Tribunal ought to have considered was whether A
there was compliance with the relevant rules in the conduct of interview. It
could not have considered the manner in which interview was concluded
and whether the marks should have been allotted in a particular manner
or otherwise and whether marks awarded was justified in the present case
or not. [493-C; BJ
B
3. There is always a presumption in favour of administration that it
exercises powers in good faith and for public benefit. The burden is on the
individual to produce sufficient material to suggest the malafides of the
concerned authority and it is not easy to discharge the same. (492-D]
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1567 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.10.95 of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Allahabad in 0.A. No. 1057 of 1994.

M.N. Goswami, Niranjana Singh, Anil Katiyar, Arvind Kumar Sharma, D
for the Appellants ..

Waziri and Irshad Ahmad for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
RAJENDRA BABU, J. Respondent No: 1 herein was working as Chief
Vigilance Inspector at North Eastern Railway. He appeared for written
examination held on 12.3.1994 for selection to the post of Assistant Engineer,
Grade 'B' for filling up 70% of the vacancies reserved for promotees. The
result of the written test was published on 2.5.1994 and he was declared
F
qualified i.n the written examination. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 appeared for
interview before a Selection Committee consisting of Shri M.M. Goyal, Chief
Engineer as Chairman, respondent No. 2 herein, Shri Ram Deo, Chief Personnel
Officer (Admn.) and Shri Binod Prasad, Chief Electrical Engineer. His interview
took place on May 20 and 21, 1994. The selection proceedings were finalised
by the Selection Committee on May 25, 1994. On May 27, 1994 a cassette G
was delivered anonymously to the Chief Personnel Officer who in turn passed
it on to the members of the Selection Committee. Thereafter, the Selection
Committee met again on May 30, 1994 and took vn record the transcript of the
cassette anonymously delivered. After recording certain proceedings, the .
Selection Committee put the entire matter to the General Manager, North H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, for approval.· Thereafter, on June 3, ·1994
respondent No. 1 alleged malafides on the part of the Selection Committee and
a case was also registered. However, the General Manager approved the
selection made by the Selection Committee on July 11, 1994 and the approved
panel of 28 candidates was published.
B Respondent No. 1 filed an application in O.A. No. 1057 of 1994 before
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad [hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal']. ·1n the meanwhile, respondent No.· 1 was repatriated to his parent
Engineering Department. The Tribunal quashed the result of the viva voce test
in respect. of respondent No. 1 and directed the appellants to subject respondent
C· No. 1 to a fresh viva voce test to be held by another Selection Committee to
be constituted by persons at appropriate level other than those who constituted
the :earlier Selection Committee and if, as a result thereof, he is declared
qualified,.be shall be promoted with effect from the date on which his immediate
junior was promoted with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary.
D Against that order ofthe Tribunal this appeal is filed by special leave. This
Court granted an interim order staying the operation of the orper of the Tribunal.

Father of respondent No. 1 was employed on the establishment of the
appellants and when he died in harness, respondent No. 1 was appointed to the
post of Inspector of Works in the Grade of Rs. 2000-3200 on compassionate
E ground. On completion of his training he was posted in the office of the Chief
Engineer, North-Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. In April 1991 he opted for an
assignment in the Railway Vigilance Department and was posted as Chief
Vigilance Inspector. Thereafter, he was sent on deputation to the Indian
Railway Construction Company and was posted in Malaysia for a petjod of one
F year from May 1992 to May 1993. On completion of his deputation period
he returned to India in May 1993 and resumed his duties in. the post of Chief
Vigilance Inspector.

Respondent No. l alleged in his application before the Tribunal that
while he was in the Vigilance Department he had conducted an inquiry against
G one Shri Sanjai Mittal, Executive Engineer in the Construction Division and
on the basis of a report submitted by him, Shri Sanjai Mittal was placed under
suspension and was facing disciplinary proceedings; that Shri Sanjai Mittal is
closely related to Shri M.M. Goyal, respondent No. 2, one of the members of
the Selection Committee; that, therefore, he apprehended that he would not get
H a fair deal at the hands of Selection Committee consisting of resp01ident No.
lf.0.1. v. A.K. SRIVASTAVA [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 491
2; that his apprehension- was confirmed by reason of only 3 marks,,.being A
allotted to him out of 25 marks in the viva voce testin personality, leadership,
ability and educational qualification as a result of which he was not finally
selected. The allegation that respondent No. 2 is closely related to Shri Sanjai
Mittal was denied as absolutely false. It was averred that respondent No. 2 was
not even dis~ntly related to Shri Sanjai Mittal; that the post of Assistant
B
Engineer, Group 'B' is a very important and crucial post being directly involved
in the safety of life of passengers and maintenance of critical and costly assets
and selection for such a crucial post has got to be very rigorous and each step
of selection is well-documented; that selection is carried out by a Board of three
very senior officers of the rank of Head of Department or above with proven
track ~ecord of unimpeachable integrity; that members of the Selection c
Committee individually and jointly assess the performance of the applicant to
arrive at the suitability of the candidate for promotion; that viva voce test
carries 50 marks out of which 25 marks are earmarked for the record of service
and the remaining 25 marks are allotted for adjudging the personality, leadership,
address, academic and technical qualifications, etc.; that it is essential for the D
candidate to secure a minimum of 15 marks.out of 25 marks for the record of
service also he must secure a minimum of 30 marks out of fotal 50 marks in
the viva voce test; that there is no separate allocation of marks for personality,
leadership, address, academic and technical qualifications, etc. Respondent No.
2 also filed an affidavit denying that he was related to Shri Sanjai Mittal.
E
Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed a rejoinder affidavit alleging that respondent
No. 2 is a cousin of one Shri J.P. Goel, who is the father-in-law of Shri Sanjai
Mittal and that Shri J.P. Goel is also a senior batch-mate of respondent No. 2
in Roorkee University.

The Tribunal approached the matter in a rather strange way. Firstly, it F
took into consideration the allegation made by respondent No. 1 that Shri
Sanjai Mittal is related to respondent No. 2. On that aspect no finding was
recorded by the Tribunal, but it noted as follows :-

"Thus, it is clear that Shri Sanjai Mittal, whether or not he was related
to the respondent No. 3 was working as Secretary to respondent No. G
3 on the date when the viva-voce test took place."

And, thereafter, the Tribunal referred to the transcript of tape indicating
that during the course of viva voce test respondent No. 3 called his Secretary
and told him that the applicant had only been in Vigilance Department and had H
492 SUPREME COlJRT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A no exposure to the field work and, therefore, shotild be posted in the first as
Inspector of Works. Thus, the association of respondent No. 2 and his Secretary
was taken by the Tribunal to be sufficient to vitiate the interview.

In the first place, the Tribunal should have given a definite finding as to
whether Shri Sanjai Mittal was related to respondent No. 2 or not and, if that
B ground failed, it should not have allowed respondent No. 1 to change his stance
that somehow and in some other manner Shri Sanjai Mittal is connected with
respondent No. 2. The Tribunal should not have proceeded on line proving
moral indicated in one of Aescop's Fable of the lamb and the wolf when the
complaint was that the stream was being polluted by the lamb and ifnot by
c it by any of its forefathers. The approach of the Tribunal in this regard is by
no reason good enough to chastise the said respondent No. 2 and condemn the
proceedings conducted not only by him but other officers who are of equivalent
rank. There is always a presumption in favour of administration that it exercises
powers in good faith and for public benefit. The burden is on the individual
D to produce sufficient material to suggest of the mala .fides of the concerned
authority and it is not easy to discharge the same. ,.

The Tribunal considered the tape recorded part of the interview and
noticed as follows :
• J

E "Th.ere is nothing wrong about the questions which sought to elicit the
Applicant's experience as the same is very relevant to his ability or the
lack of it to handle work situations in the higher post. It is, however,
the manner in which disparaging remarks were made about the
Applicant's lack of field experience which tends to indicate that the
F purpose of the question was not merely to elicit facts. That part, the
very fact that the Secretary was called in during the interview he was
told .about lack of field experience on the part of the Applicant, is
quite strange and cannot but give an impression that the Chairman
of the Board was not making an objective assessment of the
Applicant's mental attributes which are really the purpose of the viva
G voce test."

On this basis, the Tribunal concluded that it was highly probable that the
Secretary could have influenced the Chairman of the Selection Committee
against respondent No. l. This approach of the Tribunal is once again plainly
fallacious. Firstly, the allegation was that the Chairman was biased because of
H
..
' ,

U.0.l. v. A.K. SRIVASTAVA [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 493
his close relationship with Shri Sanjai Mittal and thereafter the proximity of A
the Secretary was considered sufficient to influence the Chairman of the Selection
Committe.e. Jf this kind of approach is allowed, no administration can be safe
and, therefore, we do not appreciate the manner in which the Tribunal proceeded
in this matter.

The Tribunal proceeded further to consider in what manner the interview B
should have been conducted, whether the marks should have been allotted in
a particular manner or otherwise and whether awarding 3 marks out of total
25 marks was justified in the present case or not. So long as the bias of the
Selection Committee could not be proved, the only aspect that the Tribunal
ought to have considered was whether there was compliance with the relevant C
rules in the conduct of interview.

The Tribunal upheld the contentions of the appellants that allotment of
marks need not be faculty wise and it is open to the members of the Selection
Committee to make an over all assessment of the interviewed candidate. Again,
the contention as regards tape-recording the questions and answers urged on D
behalf of respondent No. 1 was rejected. The Tribunal observed that over all
assessment made by the Selection Committee and allocation of lump sum
marks for the same, taken by itself, cannot be considered to have vitiated the
test. However, the Tribunal proceeded to make its own assessment of
respondent No. 1 by reference to his experience as a trainee for a commissioned E
post in Defence Services and what marks should have been allotted to him.
The Tribunal also sat in judgment as to whether for academic and technical
qualifications the marks allotted by the appellants to respondent No. 1 are
justified or not.

The Tribunal ought to have considered the matter in right perspective by F
considering the various contentions raised in the matter and not sit in judgment
over the interview and allotted marks on its own and give the directions in the
manner it did.

Therefore, we set aside the order inade by the Tribunal and dismiss O.A. G
1057 of 1994 filed in the Tribunal. The :!ppeal is accordingly allowed. No
costs.

K.K.T. Appeals allowed.