The Gauhati High Court: Reaffirms that the principle of Nemo Judex in Causa Sua applies to university inquiry committees, nullifying selections and re-inquiries that allow Board of Management members to act in investigative, reporting, and adjudicatory roles. This judgment is binding on subordinate courts in Assam and holds persuasive value elsewhere for cases involving bias and procedural fairness in educational appointments.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/4544/2024 of Jayanta Kumar Sarma Vs Krishna Kanta Handique State Open University And 5 Ors |
| CNR | GAHC010183592024 |
| Date of Registration | 05-09-2024 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Of |
| Judgment Author | Honourable Mr. Justice Robin Phukan |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for Assam; persuasive in other jurisdictions for similar facts relating to bias and natural justice in appointment reviews. |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing law on natural justice and bias (“Nemo Judex in Causa Sua”) and follows Supreme Court precedent; directs reconstitution of committee. |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Administrative Law / University Service / Principles of Natural Justice |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that the principle of natural justice “Nemo Judex in Causa Sua” applies with full force to administrative and quasi-judicial inquiries in university service matters. The presence of Board of Management (BoM) members in both inquiry and review roles creates bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias, violating natural justice. The court quashed the constitution of the committee comprising BoM members and directed the university to constitute a new committee without BoM members. The university cannot act as judge in its own cause and cannot revisit selection by stepping into the shoes of the original selection committee. Even if statutes or rules allow reviews, such power must be exercised by adhering to principles of natural justice and impartiality. The decision reaffirms that procedural fairness is essential even in administrative actions. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Union of India vs. B.N. Jha (AIR 1957 SC 425); A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India ((1969) 2 SCC 262); Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel ((1985) 3 SCC 398); R. R. Verma and others vs. Union of India and Others ((1980) 3 SCC 402); Kime Boby & Anr. vs. Gauhati High Court & Anr. (2021 (3) GLT 33) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court cited and applied the maxim “Nemo Judex in Causa Sua”; discussed the application of natural justice in administrative and quasi-judicial processes; referred extensively to Supreme Court authorities that have defined procedural fairness and impartiality as essential to valid decision-making; noted the need for lack of personal, pecuniary, or subject-matter bias; distinguished between review powers and duty to follow natural justice even while exercising such powers. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was appointed Professor in KKHSOU after due selection involving external subject experts; service was confirmed post-probation. On complaints and an inquiry behind his back, his service was terminated without a hearing. The High Court set aside the termination and directed adherence to service rules; on appeal, the Division Bench reiterated the need for proper hearing and mandated a reasoned decision. The University then constituted a committee (with three BoM members) to examine his explanations, asked for full original documents, and scheduled hearings. The petitioner argued bias and violation of natural justice due to overlapping roles of BoM members in inquiry, reporting, and adjudication; also contending that revisiting confirmed selection in this manner was arbitrary and illegal. The University argued that revisitation was lawful and necessary due to procedural anomalies, and that the BoM’s involvement was proper and not barred. The court’s decision quashed the committee, finding the process in breach of natural justice. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Assam and parties before the Gauhati High Court in similar contexts. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and judicial fora in India dealing with inquiries or reviews of academic/professional appointments, especially regarding natural justice and bias in committee constitution. |
| Follows | Union of India vs. B.N. Jha (AIR 1957 SC 425); A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India ((1969) 2 SCC 262); Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel ((1985) 3 SCC 398); R.R. Verma and others vs. Union of India ((1980) 3 SCC 402) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment explicitly holds that a university’s Board of Management members cannot constitute a majority of a committee reviewing a professor’s credentials if its report is also to be reviewed by the same Board.
- Application of the maxim “Nemo Judex in Causa Sua” is not limited to judicial/quasi-judicial proceedings, but extends to such university-level selection and inquiry committees.
- Quashing of re-inquiry procedures where there is overlap of investigative, reporting, and adjudicatory roles even under university statutes or after confirmation in service.
- The decision can be cited to challenge any similar composition of committees (multiple roles for the same authority) in academic service reviews, not just for education sector but generally in service law context.
- Clarifies that exercise of power to review or revisit an earlier administrative or service appointment remains subject to the constitutional minimum of natural justice and reasonable apprehension of bias.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court began by stating the issues: whether after confirmation, suitability of appointment may be re-examined by a process involving subjective assessment, and whether a committee with overlapping BoM membership can do so.
- Reviewed the facts and found that after due selection and confirmation, the petitioner’s credentials were being subjectively re-examined by a committee composed of three BoM members.
- The court cited UGC Regulations 2018, specifically clause 4.1(III.B) and 6.0(V), and noted that the university had not laid down clear and transparent selection criteria as mandated.
- Discussed the principle of natural justice “Nemo Judex in Causa Sua”, referencing Union of India vs. B.N. Jha, A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India, and Tulsiram Patel.
- Held that membership of BoM in both investigative and adjudicatory roles breaches the rule against bias even in administrative actions, and rejected the argument that bias concerns are merely hypothetical.
- Declared that even if the university has power to revise or revisit appointments under law, it must do so in a process clearly free from bias and in compliance with natural justice.
- Quashed the impugned committee and directions, and required reconstitution without BoM members to ensure procedural fairness.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioner’s appointment and confirmation followed due process as per UGC norms; external subject experts assessed and selected him.
- Re-inquiry by the same authority is arbitrary, illegal and a re-examination of settled questions.
- Inquiry committee’s composition (three BoM members) creates bias; BoM will review recommendations of its own members, acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
- University is revisiting the selection with a premeditated outcome, ignoring principles of service law and natural justice.
- Seeking original documents and Ph.D. thesis amounts to substituting the role of the original selection panel.
- Cited Supreme Court precedents to argue in favour of adherence to principles of bias and natural justice.
Respondent University
- The petitioner did not fulfil the UGC eligibility criteria for appointment as Professor; prior process and selection were legally flawed.
- University has power and duty to revisit anomalous or non-transparent selections.
- Committee’s constitution is in accordance with UGC regulations and internal statutes.
- No legal bar to BoM members serving on such committees.
- The university’s actions were in compliance with appellate court directions and were not mala fide.
- Precedents cited by petitioner were distinguished as inapplicable to facts.
- The university cited Supreme Court cases to argue that illegal appointments can be reviewed and terminated even without full enquiry.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a former Indian Railways Public Relations Officer with a Ph.D., applied for the post of Professor at KKHSOU following advertisement and due process involving external subject experts. He was interviewed and appointed, and later confirmed after completion of probation. Following anonymous complaints and a committee report alleging failure to meet UGC requirements, his service was terminated without a hearing. On writ petition, the High Court set aside his termination, directing adherence to service rules and fair hearing. The university then constituted a committee (with three Board of Management members) to examine his credentials anew, to which the petitioner objected on grounds of bias and violation of natural justice, leading to the present petition.
Statutory Analysis
- The court closely examined UGC Regulations, 2018, especially:
- 4.1(III.B): Lays down eligibility for appointment of “outstanding professionals” as professors.
- 6.0(V): Requires that for such appointments, the university must set out “clear and transparent criteria and procedure.”
- The court found that no such criteria had been laid down by KKHSOU.
- Judicial precedents relating to “Nemo Judex in Causa Sua” were applied, extending their interpretation to service and administrative law settings within universities, requiring impartial committees without overlap of investigation and decision-making personnel.
Procedural Innovations
- The court required that in future, committees for reviewing explanations in service law contexts must be constituted in conformity with natural justice — explicitly directing no Board of Management members to serve on the inquiry panel.
- The panel is to be reconstituted, and all relevant hearings and examination of explanations must be in strict adherence to both natural justice and earlier appellate directions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms and applies settled law regarding natural justice and bias in administrative hearings, following long-standing judicial authority.