Administrative Law

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana

AIR 1987 SC 454

Citation: AIR 1987 SC 454
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 10 May 1985
Bench: P.N. Bhagwati, Y.V. Chandrachud, Amarendra Nath Sen and V. Balakrishna Eradi, JJ.

Facts

Haryana Public Service Commission conducted selections for public service posts.
Some selected candidates were close relatives of members of the Commission.
The concerned members did not interview their own relatives, but they remained part of the wider selection process.
The selection was challenged on grounds of bias and excessive marks for viva voce/interview.

Whether the selection was invalid because relatives of Commission members appeared in the interview.

The basic rule is: no one should be a judge in his own cause.
Normally, if a selection committee member’s close relative is a candidate, that member should withdraw from the entire selection process.
But this strict rule is relaxed for constitutional bodies like the Public Service Commission because of the doctrine of necessity.

The Court accepted that the rule against bias is a fundamental principle of administrative law.
The test is not actual bias, but real likelihood of bias.
In an ordinary selection committee, if one member’s close relative is appearing, the safer rule is that the member should completely withdraw from the selection process.
This is because selection is comparative. Even if the member does not interview his own relative, he may still influence the marks of other candidates, directly or indirectly.
However, the Court treated Public Service Commissions differently.
A Public Service Commission is a constitutional authority. Its members cannot be easily replaced by outsiders.
If every member whose relative appears is forced to withdraw from the whole process, the functioning of the Commission may become impossible.
Therefore, the Court applied the doctrine of necessity.
The concerned member should not interview or assess his own relative, but he need not withdraw from the entire selection process.
On the viva voce issue, the Court said that giving very high marks to interviews creates danger of arbitrariness because interviews are subjective.
But the Court did not treat the selection as automatically invalid merely because interview marks were high.

The Supreme Court did not quash the whole selection only on the ground that relatives of Commission members had appeared.
It held that for a constitutional body like the Public Service Commission, complete withdrawal of the member is not always required.
Limited recusal from interviewing the relative is sufficient.
The case is important because it shows that the rule against bias is strong, but not mechanical.
Use this case for: doctrine of necessity as an exception to bias, especially in constitutional/public bodies.