Dismissed

Dr. Nursingha Charan Sarangi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Sept 2023WP(C)/9100/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the awarding of a literary prize to Utkal Sahitya Samaj, alleging bias because a committee member, Prof. Sahu, was a life member of the awardee. The Court rejected the claim, finding no evidence of influence and holding that the Petitioner lacked locus standi.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Dr. Nursingha Charan Sarangi Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 9100 OF 2022

¶2

In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶3

Dr. Nursingha Charan Sarangi …… Petitioner -Versus-

¶4

State of Odisha and others …… Opp. Parties

¶5

Advocates appeared in these cases:

¶6

For Petitioner : M/s. Sameer Kumar Das, P.K. Behera & N. Jena

¶7

For Opp. Parties : Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel (For Opp. Party Nos.1 & 2) M/s. B.P. Tripathy, S.R. Pati & Ramdas Achary (For Opp. Party No.3) M/s. Kshirod Kumar Rout, J. Naik, S.K. Rout, S.K. Bhuyan & A. Jamal (For Opp. Party No. 4) CORAM : MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

¶8

JUDGMENT

¶9

11^th , September, 2023

¶10

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

¶11

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶12

2 . The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to quash and set aside the appointment/nomination of Opposite Party No.3, namely, Prof. Udayanath Sahu, as a member of selection committee for the purpose of conferring ‘Vyasakabi Fakirmohan Odia Bhasa Samman-2020’ (for

¶13

W.P.(C) NO.9100 of 2022

¶14

Page 1 of 13

¶15

// 2 //

¶16

brevity ‘the Award’) and direct the State Government and its authorities to publish the decision of selection committee taken earlier for conferment of the Award. In the alternative, the Petitioner prayed for constitution of a new selection committee and to confer the award within a stipulated period.

¶17

Factual backdrop of the case is that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Government of Odisha on 18^th December, 2020 (Annexure-1) for conferment of the Award, the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.4 along with others submitted their applications in the prescribed format. On receipt of the applications, the Government of Odisha constituted a selection committee.

¶18

Grievance of the Petitioner in this writ petition is with regard to nomination of Opposite Party No.3, namely, Prof. Udayanath Sahu, as a member of selection committee. It is his allegation that the Opposite Party No.3 is a life member of ‘Utkal Sahitya Samaj’Opposite Party No.4, who has been conferred with the award. The Opposite Party No.3 should not have been the judge of his own cause. Thus, the entire selection process for conferment of the award is vitiated.

¶19

Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that although several grounds have been taken in the writ petition, but the Petitioner confines its case only on the ground as stated above. It is submitted that initially four eminent persons in the field of Odia language and literature were nominated to be the members of selection committee. However, two of such members of selection committee, namely, Dr. Sitakanta Mohapatra and Dr. Rama Chandra Behera, did not want to continue as such. Thus, two other members, namely, Prof. Udayanath Sahu (Opposite Party No.3) and Shri Alekha Charan

¶20

Page 2 of 13

¶21

W.P.(C) NO.9100 of 2022

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

Padihari, were nominated in their place, which is clear from the letter dated 8^th December, 2021 (Annexure-6) issued by the Director and Additional Secretary in the Department of Odia Language Literature and Culture, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar. Subsequently, Dr. Rajkishore Mishra also opted out from the selection committee. Again, Dr. Shanghamitra Mishra, also expressed her inability to continue in the selection committee. However, Prof. Udayanath Sahu-Opposite Party No.3 and Shri Alekha Charan Padihari continued to be the members of the said selection committee.

¶24

When the matter stood thus, the Petitioner received a caveat petition issued by learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.4, namely, Utkal Sahitya Samaj. After going through the caveat petition, more particularly the averments made in para-4 of the said petition, the Petitioner came to learn that Utkal Sahitya Samaj-Opposite Party No.4 has been selected to receive the award. Mr. Das, learned counsel also referred to paragraph-4 of the caveat petition (Annexure-8), which reads as under:

¶25

“ 4. That, for the year 2021, as learnt, the Govt. in Department of Odia language, literature & culture has selected “Utkal Sahitya Samaj”, a century old and the premier literary organization of the State of Odisha to be honoured with such award” .

¶26

As such, the Petitioner enquired about the matter and surprised to learn that the Opposite Party No.4, namely, Utkal Sahitya Samaj, was aware of the result even before the award was officially declared. It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.3 being the life member of Opposite Party No.4 must have disclosed the same to it.

¶27

It is further submitted that the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 in their counter affidavit have specifically averred that the Government

¶28

Page 3 of 13

¶29

W.P.(C) NO.9100 of 2022

¶30

// 4 //

¶31

had no knowledge that Prof. Udayanath Sahu (Opposite Party No.3) was the life member of Utkal Sahitya Samaj-Opposite Party No.4. It was also stated in their counter affidavit that had it been known to the Government, constitution of the committee would have been changed. However, the State Government in order to save their scheme and defend their action has averred that the Opposite Party No.3 was not an applicant for the award and he was not the sole member of the selection committee.

¶32

Since undisputedly the Opposite Party No.3 was a life member of Opposite Party No.4-Utkal Sahitya Samaj, the entire selection process is vitiated and became void. Law is well settled that ‘one cannot be a judge of his own cause’. As such, participation of Opposite Party No.3 in the process of selection of the award vitiates the entire proceeding.

¶33

Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner also relied upon the decision in the case of A.K. Kraipak and others –v- Union of India and others , reported in AIR 1970 SC 150, wherein it is held that one cannot be the judge of his own cause, as there is a reasonable likelihood of bias. But, unfortunately the Opposite Party No.3 suppressed the same to the State Government. Only after filing of the writ petition, the State Government became aware of such fact. It is his submission that although the award was made public by the State Government only on 19^th April, 2022, but the Opposite Party No.4-awardee made it public on 24^th January, 2022 by filing a caveat petition.

¶34

The Petitioner also relied upon the case of Dr. Priyaranjan Maral and others –v- State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.39640 of 2021 disposed of on 11^th July, 2022) stating that an identical issue came up for consideration therein with regard to selection of Assistant

¶35

Page 4 of 13

¶36

W.P.(C) NO.9100 of 2022

¶37

// 5 //

¶38

Professor by the O.P.S.C., where the Ph.D guides of some of the selected candidates were the subject experts. Considering the matter in detail, this Court set aside the selection process.

¶39

Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that initially it was decided to confer the award in favour of the Petitioner and one Antaryami Mishra jointly, but, for the reasons best known, such a decision was altered and the Opposite Party No.4 was conferred with the award. He, therefore, submits that the entire selection process for conferment of the award is vitiated and is not sustainable. Hence, the same should be set aside. He also referring to Annexure-A/2 of the counter affidavit filed by the State Government submitted that the Petitioner along with Shri Antaryami Mishra should be jointly conferred with the award.

¶40

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 made a detail submission on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the State Government. He has also produced photocopies of the relevant records of the selection process for conferment of the award in a sealed cover for perusal of the Court. It is his submission that the State Government had no knowledge of the fact that the Opposite Party No.3 is a life member of Opposite Party No.4. Opposite Party No.3 never disclosed the same. However, Opposite Party No.3 was not the sole member of the selection committee. There were other three members in the selection committee, which unanimously selected the Opposite Party No.4 to be the recipient of the award. It is further submitted that no individual member had the opportunity to influence the collective decision of the committee. It can also be verified from the record produced before the Court. Previously, the selection committee recommended that the award should be

¶41

Page 5 of 13

¶42

W.P.(C) NO.9100 of 2022

¶43

// 6 //

¶44

conferred on two individuals including the Petitioner which did not include the Opposite Party No.4. But the said recommendation was turned down by the State Government. There is also no material on record to arrive at a conclusion that the Opposite Party No.3 has influenced the decision of the selection committee.

¶45

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel also made elaborate submission with regard to competency of the members of the selection committee and their backgrounds on Odia language, literature and culture. It is also submitted that the Petitioner along with one Shri Antaryami Mishra were recommended by the selection committee for conferment of the award jointly. However, the Government in Odia Language, Literature and Culture Department desired that it should be given either to one individual or to one institution instead of awarding it jointly. Therefore, the selection committee again met on 19^th January, 2022. Although the Petitioner was aware of the fact that Utkal Sahitya Samaj-Opposite Party No.4 is an applicant for the award and Opposite Party No.3 is a life member of said Opposite Party No.4, but he neither objected to the same nor disclosed it at any time before filing of this writ petition. Rather the Petitioner participated in the selection process. Hence, he cannot challenge the result thereof being not selected for the award. It is further submitted that apart from two non-official members, namely, Prof. Udayanath Sahu-Opposite Party No.3 and Shri Alekh Charan Padihari, there were two other official members in the said committee, namely, Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Director-cum-Additional Secretary to Government in the Department of Odia Language, Literature and Culture, Odisha, Bhubaneswar to have a fair selection. Thus, there was no requirement to select any other member for that purpose, as alleged by the Petitioner.

¶46

Page 6 of 13

¶47

W.P.(C) NO.9100 of 2022

¶48

// 7 //

¶49

In support of his contention, Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel relied upon the decision in the case of Utkal University –v- Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and others , reported in (1999) 2 SCC 193 in which it is held as under:

¶50

“ 10. What is more, we fail to see how on account of one of the experts being a member of an organization or being on the Editorial Board of a magazine brought out by that organization, he would necessarily be favourably inclined towards the Editor of that magazine. There is no allegation of any personal relationship between the member of the Selection Committee and the candidate. Not unnaturally, the member concerned of the Selection Committee has taken strong exception to the charge of bias. In his letter addressed to the University dated 10-5-1994, he has pointed out that he was, in fact, more closely connected with the first respondent, Dr Nrusingha Charan Sarangi than the selected candidate. He has pointed out that the first respondent hails from his native place, belongs to the family of his priest and the first respondent has dedicated his book to the said member. All this is prior to the said interview. He has also pointed out that he agreed to be associated with the said Shri Jagannath Gabesana Parishad only because his teacher is one of its founders. Another expert on the Selection Committee, Dr J.B. Mohanty, has also addressed a letter dated 21-1-1994 to the University pointing out that the selected candidate was selected on merit after taking into consideration his academic record, Honours teaching experience, research activities and performance at the interview. The first respondent, although he was given time to file a counteraffidavit here after all these documents were disclosed, has not filed any reply. Allegations of bias must be carefully examined before any selection can be set aside. In the first place, it is the joint responsibility of the entire Selection Committee to select a candidate who is suitable for the post. When experts are appointed to the Committee for selection, the selection should not be lightly set aside unless there is adequate material which would indicate a strong likelihood of bias or show that any member of the Selection Committee had a direct personal interest in appointing any particular candidate. The expert in question, in the present case, had no personal interest in the selection of any particular candidate. It is not even

¶51

Page 7 of 13

¶52

W.P.(C) NO.9100 of 2022

¶53

// 8 //

¶54

alleged by the first respondent that he had any such personal interest in the selection of the candidate who was selected. The mere fact that the expert as well as one of the candidates were members of the same organization and connected with the magazine brought out by it would not be sufficient, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to come to a conclusion that the selector had a specific personal interest in the selection of that candidate. The experts, in the present case, are experts in the Oriya language and are men of stature in their field. The candidates who would be considered for selection by the Selection Committee would also be candidates who have some stature or standing in the Oriya language and literature, looking to the nature of the post. Any literary association in this context, or any knowledge about the literary activities of the candidates would not, therefore, necessarily lead to a conclusion of bias. Looking to the circumstances of the present case, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that the Selection Committee was biased in favour of the candidate selected.”

¶55

(Underlined for emphasis)

¶56

The Petitioner herein was the first Respondent in the said case. Thus, only because the Opposite Party No.3 is a life member of Opposite Party No.4, it would not ipso facto be construed that he had influenced the selection process for the award. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶57

Mr. Rout, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.4 submits that the Petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the selection process. There is no averment in the writ petition to come to a conclusion that had the Opposite Party No.3 been not there in the selection committee, the Petitioner would have been selected for the award. He further submits that the Petitioner being aware of the fact that the Opposite Party No.4 is an applicant and the Opposite Party No.3 is a life member of said Opposite Party No.4 (Utkal Sahitya Samaj), did not raise any objection at any point of time during the entire selection process. Being unsuccessful in the selection process for the award, he has come up W.P.(C) NO.9100 of 2022 Page 8 of 13

¶58

// 9 //

¶59

with the present writ petition. As such, he being a fence-sitter has no locus standi to challenge the selection process. In support of his case, he relied upon the decision in the case of Dr. G. Sarana –v- University of Lucknow and others , reported in AIR 1976 SC 2428. He also relying upon the case law of Utkal University (supra) submitted that allegation of bias must be carefully examined before any selection is set aside. In the first place, it is the joint responsibilities of the entire selection committee to select a suitable candidate for the purpose it is constituted so that the selection is not lightly set aside. Unless there is adequate material which would indicate a strong likelihood of bias or it reflects that any member of the selection committee had a direct personal interest, the selection process should not be interfered with. Mere fact that one of the members of the selection committee was the life member of selected institution, would not be sufficient to come to the conclusion that the selector had a specific personal interest in the selection of that institution. It is his submission that the Petitioner was all throughout vigilant about the selection process. He had also tried to influence the selection committee with lewd and sarcastic remarks in the social media. Having failed in all his attempts, the Petitioner has tried to utilize the judicial process for his vested interest. As such, the writ petition is not bona fide and is liable to be dismissed with cost.

¶60

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶61

As submitted by Mr. Das, learned counsel, Petitioner assails the selection process on the sole ground that a person cannot be the judge of his own cause. In support of his case, he also relied upon the ratio in the case of A.K. Kraipak and others (supra).

¶62

Page 9 of 13

¶63

W.P.(C) NO.9100 of 2022

¶64

// 10 //

¶65

On a close reading of the writ petition along with written note of submission filed by the Petitioner, it clearly reveals that the Petitioner took exception to the fact that the Opposite Party No.3 being a life member of Opposite Party No.4-Utkal Sahitya Samaj, should not have been part of the selection committee. He has also stated that the Government of Odisha was in dark about the fact that he is a life member of the organization (Opposite Party No.4-Utkal Sahitya Samaj), who was also the applicant and recipient of the award. He also brought to the notice of the Court to the averments made in the counter affidavit stating that had this fact known to the State Government, it would not have nominated the Opposite Party No.3 as a member of the selection Committee. It is his submission that the same is sacrosanct to hold that the Opposite Party No.3 should not have been a part of the selection process.

¶66

There is, of course, no material on record to show that the Opposite Party No.3 has shown any favour to Opposite Party No.4 in the entire selection process. It reveals from the record that initially the names of the Petitioner along with one Shri Antaryami Mishra were recommended for the award. However, the Government of Odisha did not accept the same and suggested that it should be given one individual or one institution. As would appear from the minutes of the selection committee dated 19^th January, 2022 (Annexure-A/2) that the Opposite Party No.3 suggested that since during last two years, institutions were being selected for the award, it should be conferred on individual. Keeping in mind the suggestion made by the Opposite Party No.3, applications of five institutions and nine individuals were scrutinized and the names of the Petitioner and Shri Antaryami Mishra were recommended for the award. When recommendation made by the

¶67

Page 10 of 13

¶68

W.P.(C) NO.9100 of 2022

¶69

// 11 //

¶70

selection committee was not accepted, the matter was again placed before the selection committee and one of the members, namely, Dr. Alekha Charan Padihari, suggested that since there are instances of joint conferment of the award on individuals, the Government should be requested to reconsider its decision. But the said suggestion was objected to by the Additional Chief Secretary, who was also a member of the selection committee, stating that examples of other institutions cannot be a ground to request the Government to reconsider the decision. Then Dr. Padhihari suggested conferring the award to an eminent organization/institution. Thereafter, the selection committee unanimously recommended the name of Opposite Party No.4-Utkal Sahitya Samaj for the award stating that since the institution was established in the year, 1903; Vyasakabi Fakir Mohan had been the President of the said institution on two occasions; the institution has published three books on Vyasakabi Fakir Mohan and two books on literature and language and forty books on other subjects of Odia language. From the minutes of the meeting of the selection committee dated 19^th January, 2022 (Annexure-A/2), it clearly establishes that the Opposite Party No.3 had not at all influenced the selection committee to recommend the name of Opposite Party No.4 for the award. On the other hand, the name of Opposite Party No.4 was recommended unanimously on the basis of its own literary contribution including its contribution on the publication of books on Vyasakabi Fakir Mohan and its contribution to the Odia language.

¶71

There can be no quarrel or the question on the ratio decided in the cases of A.K. Kraipak and others (supra) and Dr. Priyaranjan Maral and others (supra) of this Court. The principles decided in those cases are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the said case and

¶72

Page 11 of 13

¶73

W.P.(C) NO.9100 of 2022

¶74

// 12 //

¶75

are of no assistance to the case of the Petitioner. The case law in Utkal University (supra) is apt to the instant case. It has discussed the case law on the issue of bias more vividly and held that when experts are appointed to the Committee for selection, the selection should not be lightly set aside unless there is adequate material which would indicate a strong likelihood of bias or show that any member of the Selection Committee had a direct personal interest in appointing any particular member. In the instant case, there is no iota of material to show that the Opposite Party No.3 had any personal interest for conferment of the award of Opposite Party No.4 or he has shown any favour for conferment of such award. There is also no allegation to that effect. Only because the Opposite Party No.3 was a life member of Opposite Party No.4, which is a premier organization of Odia language and has large number of eminent persons having interest in Odia literature, language and culture as its member, it cannot be said that the Opposite Party No.3 has influenced the selection committee for conferment of the award to Opposite Party No.4. As discussed above, from the minutes of the selection committee dated 19^th January, 2022 (Annexure-A/2 to the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2), it is crystal clear that the Opposite Party No.3 was of the opinion that it should be awarded to two individuals. Thus, at no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the Opposite Party No.3 has ever influenced or became the judge of his own cause. Apart from Opposite Party No.3, there were three other members and the selection committee was chaired by the Additional Chief Secretary of Odia Language, Literature and Culture Department, Government of Odisha.

¶76

In absence of any material or scrap of paper to show that the Opposite Party No.3 had influenced the selection committee for

¶77

Page 12 of 13

¶78

W.P.(C) NO.9100 of 2022

¶79

// 13 //

¶80

conferment of the award, the decision/recommendation of the selection committee should not be lightly set aside when the selection committee was manned by the experts in the field.

¶81

Although the Petitioner alleges that he came to know about the conferment of the award from the caveat petition, but from the submission of Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.4, it appears that the news regarding conferment of the award to Opposite Party No.4 was published in Odia daily newspaper “ The Samaj” on 20^th January, 2022. At the same time, it cannot be brushed aside that the Petitioner had knowledge about the fact that the Opposite Party No.3 was a member of the selection committee and was a life member of Opposite Party No.4. The aforesaid fact also gets support from the statement of the Petitioner in social media, extracts of which have been annexed to the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party No.4. At no stage of selection process, the Petitioner had raised any objection to the same. Thus, the Petitioner having participated and being unsuccessful in receiving the award has no locus standi to challenge the constitution of the selection committee.

¶82