Mere Facebook Photos Don't Show Personal Friendship, 'Degree Of Relationship' Relevant To Determine Reasonableness Of Apprehension Of Bias: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court recently observed that where reasonable likelihood of 'bias' in a selection process is alleged on the ground of relationship, the degree of closeness or 'nearness' of the relationship between the parties ought to be 'so great' as to give a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Division Bench composed of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha while observing so, held that in the instant case, a mere relationship between the candidate selected (9th respondent) and a member of the Selection Committee (8th respondent), would not be sufficient to assume bias. It added that production of Facebook photographs and the fact that the 8th respondent is the HoD of the Department in which the 9th respondent was working as a Guest Lecturer, also would not automatically lead to the conclusion that there was personal friendship between the two.It was further added in this context that if the above were accepted, then the petitioner's case would also have to be scrutinized since Professor and Head, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Kerala (11th respondent herein), who was one of the three subject experts who had evaluated the performance of the petitioner and the 8th respondent in the interview and awarded marks, had issued the Conduct and Experience Certificates to the petitioner."A person who challenges the selection process on the ground that one of the members of the Selection Committee is closely associated with the successful candidate, has no qualms when it comes to her own case when it is pointed out that one of the members of the Selection Committee, i.e., the additional 11th respondent is known to her and has issued her character certificate as well as the certificate of experience. Had the petitioner been successful, probably the 9th respondent would have also raised a similar contention of bias and favoritism", it was observed.According to the initial writ petition that had been filed by the unsuccessful candidate, it was contended that she had been deliberately awarded abysmally low marks in the interview when compared to the 9th respondent, despite having secured 85 marks out of 100 for her academic record, research performance and teaching experience, while the respondent had only been awarded 75 marks out of 100 for the said components. It was contended by Advocates Kaleeswaram Raj, Varun C. Vijay, A. Aruna, and Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde, on behalf of the petitioner that the selection process was vitiated by bias and favoritism, as the 8th and the 9th respondent herein shared a close relationship. Hence, the writ petition filed sought a declaration to the effect that the appointment of the 9th respondent was unconstitutional, illegal and non-est in the eye of law, and also for awarding fair marks to the petitioner in the interview and also to appointing her to the said post. While these averments were opposed by the respondents represented by the Standing Counsel of Kerala University, Advocate Thomas Abraham, Advocates Sathosh Mathew, Shafik M.A., and Senior Government Pleader, A.J. Varghese, the Single Judge Bench had found that the appointment of the 9th respondent was indeed vitiated in law and set aside the same. However, no preferential right was granted to the petitioner to seek appointment. On the other hand, the respondents were granted the liberty to advertise for the post afresh. The respondents were also not precluded from creating another post if they found the petitioner eligible. It was on the ground that the Single Judge Bench had not ordered for awarding of fair marks in the interview for the petitioner, and appointed her instead to the post, that the instant writ appeal was filed. Along with the same, writ appeals were also filed by the 9th respondent for setting aside his appointment, and by the respondent authorities for having found the appointment of the 9th respondent as vitiated in law. It was further contended by the counsels for the petitioner-appellant in the writ appeal that the 8th respondent herein had influenced the other members of the Selection Committee, due to which the 19 marks had been awarded to the latter while the former secured only 8 marks. It was contended that since the 8th respondent was acquainted with the 9th respondent, the former should not have been made part of the Selection Committee. Statute 4(2) of Chapter 3 of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 which stipulates that, "No member of the Committee who is an applicant for the post or is related to or interested in any of the applicants for the post shall take part in the deliberations of the Committee, so far as that post is concerned", was also relied upon by the petitioner-appellant to buttress their argument. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the said 8th respondent had to mandatorily be part of the Selection Committee in terms of Clause 5.1 of the UGC Regulations deal with the composition of the...

Mere Facebook Photos Don't Show Personal Friendship, 'Degree Of Relationship' Relevant To Determine Reasonableness Of Apprehension Of Bias: Kerala HC

Navya Benny

Tags