JUDGMENT M. Katju 1. The petitioners appeared for the M.A./M.Sc examination in Home Science in the Banaras Hindu University held in May, 1991. There were three subjects in the M.A./M.Sc. Home Science course viz (1) Home Management (2) Foods and Nutrition, and (3) Extension Education There is an option to choose between Foods and Nutrition or Home Management. The petitioners opted for the former. 2. At the examination for Foods and Nutrition (Paper I) held on 2-5-1991 the petitioners walked out due to certain grievances, and by means of this writ petition they have prayed for a mandamus directing the University authorities to hold a re-examination in paper I (Food and Nutrition), there is also a prayer for quashing the examination of Paper III of Home Management, but I am not inclined to grant this prayer as the candidates for this paper have not been impleaded. The principal grievance in this petition is against respondent No. 4. It is alleged in para 3, and also in several subsequent paragraphs of the petition, that respondent No 4 always acts unfairly and favours students of her subject i.e. Home Management It has always been her desire that a student of her subject tops the merit list. Petitioner No. 1 had 79.6% marks in the 1st year examination, and had a lead of 40 marks over the next in the merit who had only 75.6% but since the latter candidate belonged to Home Management respondent No. 4 did not want petitioner No. 1 to top in the overall merit list, and she played tricks in order to succeed in her improper design, details of which are given in paras 7 to 22 of the writ petition. 3. Under the relevant rules (annexed as Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit of the University) the Academic Council appoints a Board of Examiners consisting of the Head of Department (who will be the Convenor), and two senior most teachers of the Department or having specialisation in the subject, as the case may be. Under Rule 7 of these rules (Annexure- 2 to the counter affidavit) the Convenor presides at the meeting of the Board. 4. Since Dr. Purnima Srivastava, the Head of Department dissociated herself from the examination (as one of the candidates was her relative) respondent No. 4 was appointed the Convenor of the Board of Examiners. Under Rule 7 of these rules (Annexure- 2 to the counter affidavit) the Convenor presides at the meeting of the Board. 4. Since Dr. Purnima Srivastava, the Head of Department dissociated herself from the examination (as one of the candidates was her relative) respondent No. 4 was appointed the Convenor of the Board of Examiners. The specific grievances of the petitioners are mentioned in paras 7 to 22 to writ petition but it is not necessary for this Court to go into these allegations in detail. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is reluctant to interfere in educational matters and ordinarily it is inclined to leave such matters to be decided by the: concerned educational authorities. However, there is no absolute bar to exercise of writ jurisdiction in the educational field, and when this court Binds that there is some illegality it can interfere However, a brief reference may be made to some of the petitioners' allegations. 5. In paras 7 and 19 of the writ petition it is alleged that respondent No. 4 leaked out paper No. III of Applied Physics and Household Equipment (relating to Home Management). In para 19 it has been specifically alleged that while the examination for the said paper was scheduled to be held on 9-5-91, the paper was leaked out by respondent No. 4 on the evening of 8-5-91. This leakage came to the knowledge of the petitioners on the night of 8-5-91 and hence at 7 A.M. on 9-5-91 (before the start of the examination) they made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor praying for cancellation of the said examination, but nothing was done. Annexure- 4 of the writ petition is si copy of the representation made by the petitioners to the Vice-Chancellar on the morning of 9-5-91, and this representation mentions the question which were leaked out, Annexure-5 is the actual paper of Applied Physics and Household Equipment, and if a comparison is made of the questions in Annexure-4 and Annexure-5 it appears that they substantially tally. In the two counter affidavits there is only a bald denial of para 19, out there is no denial that the representation which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition was indeed submitted to the Vice-Chancellor on the morning on 9-5-91, and there is also no explanation how the questions in Annexure-4 and Annexure-5 are substantially tallying. In the two counter affidavits there is only a bald denial of para 19, out there is no denial that the representation which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition was indeed submitted to the Vice-Chancellor on the morning on 9-5-91, and there is also no explanation how the questions in Annexure-4 and Annexure-5 are substantially tallying. This is indeed a disturbing state of affairs, and without casting aspersions on anyone I would like to say that when such a serious charge was being made against respondent No 4 it was the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to have got it properly investigated by a body which did not have respondent No. 4 as a member, but the fact is that at every stage where the petitioners grievance has been examined respondent No 4 was associated with it. I am constrained to say that the Vice-Chancellor failed in his duty in this connection Shri S. N. Verma, learned counsel for the University, urged that para 19 has no bearing on this case as the petitioners examination was held on 2-5-1991 while the examination far Applied Physics and Household Equipment was held on 8-5-91. I cannot accept this contention the matter must be considered in the contest of the grievance of the petitioners. The petitioners grievance is that the respondent No 4 favours students of her own subject From this angle the allegation in para 19 of the writ petition is certainly relevant. Moreover, it must be remembered that an overall merit list of all students is prepared, and if one paper is leaked out it will certainly affect the position in the merit list of students who have opted for other papers. I am not inclined to grant the prayer of cancelling the examination of Applied Physics and Household Equipments as candidates of this paper have not been impleaded, but the matter certainly cannot be said to have no bearing on this case. 6. In para 10 of the writ petition it is alleged that for the Paper of Nutrition and Dietetics one Dr. Ram Dayal, Professor of Plant Pathology, was appointed as examiner although Plant, Pathology has no co-relation with the subject of the said paper. It is alleged that Dr Ram Dayal could not have been appointed as the examiner as he had no teaching experience in the subject of Nutrition and Dietetics. Ram Dayal, Professor of Plant Pathology, was appointed as examiner although Plant, Pathology has no co-relation with the subject of the said paper. It is alleged that Dr Ram Dayal could not have been appointed as the examiner as he had no teaching experience in the subject of Nutrition and Dietetics. This allegation in para 10 is not specifically denied in para 14 of the counter affidavit of the University. The only averment in para 14 is "Necessarily the examiners appointed have indepth knowledge of the subject" this is really begins the question, and it is no answer to the specific allegation in para 10 to the writ petition Respondent No. 4 has also not denied the said allegations. Hence, it has to be treated as correct. Rule 5 of the: Rules relating to appointment of examiners (Annexure I to the counter affidavit of the University) states that "No person be appointed an examiner unless he has a teaching experience of the subjects included in the paper being given to him.." It is, therefore, difficult to understand how Dr. Ram Dayal could be appointed examiner for the paper of Nutrition and Dietetics. In para 11 of the writ petition there are several averments eg. questions were not distributed throughout the syllabus, there was a sudden change of tread, questions were asked from portions of the syllabus which had not been taught etc The allegation in para 11 of the writ petition is that there was violation of the relevant guidelines. These guidelines have been shown to me, but I am not going into a detailed discussion as to whether they were violated or not as that would be unnecessary for the purpose of deciding this writ petition. 7. In para 12 of the writ petition, it is alleged that after the paper setter submits the questions framed by him the same is put up for scrutiny before a Moderation Board. The Moderation Board consists of (1) the Head of Department (2) the Senior most teacher of the department, and (3) a person with specialised knowledge, of the subject, vide Annexure-3 to the counter affidavit. 8. The allegation in para 12 of the writ petition is that a teacher of the subject was not taken on the Moderation Board, and hence the Moderation stands vitiated. 8. The allegation in para 12 of the writ petition is that a teacher of the subject was not taken on the Moderation Board, and hence the Moderation stands vitiated. The reply to paragraph 12 of the writ petition is contained in para 16 of the counter affidavit, of the University which, however, is only a bald denial and it does not specifically reply to the averments in para 12 of the writ petition. In para 10 of the counter affidavit of respondent No 4 it is stated that moderation was done by respondent No 4 and Dr. Indira Vishnoi. In para 10 of the rejoinder affidavit it is stated that Dr. Indira Vishnoi does not teach the concerned paper. It was further stated that Dr. Archana Chakravorty belongs to the field of extension. From the above facts, in my opinion, it is prima facie established that the moderation was vitiated in view of the fact that there was no person on the Moderation Board with specialised knowledge in the subject. It may be mentioned that it has not been alleged in para 10 of the counter affidavit of the respondent No. 4 that Dr. Indira Vishnoi has specialised knowledge in the subject. Moreover, Annexure 'CA-3' to the counter affidavit of respondent No. 4 is dated 25-4-1992, i.e. it was written almost a year after the examination concerned was held and hence it appears to be an afterthought. 9. Para 13 of the writ petition also makes allegation which are similar to the allegation in paragraph 11 and hence I need not deal with the same again. 10. It is alleged in para 14 that the petitioners gave a representation to the Vice-Chancellor on 2-5-1991 after staging the walk out, and they prayed for re-examination of the paper. A true copy of the said representation is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereafter another representation dated 4-5-1991 was given by the petitioners giving detailed .facts. A true copy of the same is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit of the University contains the relevant Ordinance relating to the constitution and functions of the Examination Grievance Board, and Central Grievance Board. Thereafter another representation dated 4-5-1991 was given by the petitioners giving detailed .facts. A true copy of the same is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit of the University contains the relevant Ordinance relating to the constitution and functions of the Examination Grievance Board, and Central Grievance Board. These Ordinances provide that if the examinees have any genuine grievance, they can make a representation within 48 hours of the examination to the Controller of Examinations, and on such representation being made a preliminary enquiry will be made by the Examination Grievance Board. This Examination Grievance Board consists of the Head of Department, other members of the Moderation Board and the teachers teaching the paper concerned. Thereafter the Examination Grievance Board gives its comments on the matters mentioned in the Ordinance-I (c) and the department submits the reports of the Examination Grievance Board to the Dean of Faculty who forwards that to the Controller of the Examinations for being placed before the Central Grievance Board. 11. The allegations of the petitioners are that the proceedings before the Examination Grievance Board as well as Central Grievance Board are both vitiated. Before dealing with the allegations regarding the Examination Grievance Board I may first mention that the proceedings before the Central Grievance Board were vitiated because of the presence of respondent No 4 in the said Board. In paragraph 19 oft the counter affidavit of the University it is mentioned that the respondent No. 4 was a member of the Central Grievance Board which considered the petitioners representation, Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit of respondent No. 4 also mentions that the respondent No. 2 was present in the meeting of the Central Grievance Board. In my opinion, the presence of respondent No 4 on the Central Grievance Board completely vitiates the proceedings of the said Board since the main allegations of the petitioners were against respondent No 4. In this connection it may be mentioned that by now it is well established principle of Administrative Law that not only should justice be done but is should appear to be done. Since the main allegations of the petitioners were against respondent No. 4. she should have disassociated herself from the proceeding of the Central Grievance Board. In this connection I may mention the relevant decisions on this point. 12. Since the main allegations of the petitioners were against respondent No. 4. she should have disassociated herself from the proceeding of the Central Grievance Board. In this connection I may mention the relevant decisions on this point. 12. In A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 , the Honourable Supreme Court held that the presence of a candidate for selection as a member of the Selection Board vitiates the proceeding of the Board. In that case the Acting Chief Conservator of Forests Naquishbund, who was himself a candidate for selection was a member of -the Selection Board. The Honourable Supreme Court held that the entire proceedings for selection were vitiated on this account. Although each member of the Selection Board other than Naqishbund filed affidavits in the court swearing that Naquishbund had in no manner influenced their decision in making the selection it was nevertheless observed by the court "in a group deliberation each member of the group is bound to influence the others, more so. if the member concerned is a person with special knowledge. His bias is likely to operate in a subtle manner. It is no wonder that the otter members of the Selection Board are unaware to the extent to which his opinion influenced their conclusion." The Court also held that the rules of natural justice apply not only to quasi judicial proceedings but also to certain administrative proceedings. In G. Sarana v. Lucknow University, AIR 1976 SC 2428 , it was observed "what has to be seen is whether there is a reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased. In deciding the question of bias human probabilities and ordinary coarse of human conduct have to be taken into consideration In a group deliberation and decision like that of the Selection Board the members do not function as computers. Each member of the group or Board is bound to influence the other, more so, if the person concerned, is a person with special knowledge. Each member of the group or Board is bound to influence the other, more so, if the person concerned, is a person with special knowledge. His bias is likely to operate in a subtle manner." In paragraph 13 of the said decision the Honourable Supreme Court has quoted professor S. A. De Smith "the case law on the point is thin, but on principle it was seen that where a report or determination lacking final effect may nevertheless have a seriously judicial effect on the legally protected interest of individuals (e g that it is a necessary pre-requisite of the final order) and the person making the report or preliminary decision must not be affected by the interest or likelihood of bias. 13. In M/s J. Mahapatra and Co. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1984 SC 1572 , the selection of books for school and college libraries was held to be vitiated because the selection committee included a person who was the author of the books which had been submitted for selection by the committee. 14. In K. Chellaih v. Chairman, AIR 1973 Madras 122, the Chairman of the Board of the Industrial Finance Corporation had passed the dismissal order against the petitioner, and the said Chairman was a member of the Board which considered the appeal against the dismissal order. It was held that the appellate decision was vitiated. In Kirti Deshmankar v. Union of India, 1991 (1) SCC 104 . it was held that the presence of the mother-in-law of the selected candidate on the selection committee vitiated the selection. It was also held therein, following the decision in Ashok Kumar Yadava v. State of Haryana. 1985 (4) S6C 417, that it was not necessary to establish actual bias, and that if it could be shown that there was reasonable likelihood of bias, the selection process was vitiated. 15. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn Vol. I, page 87 (para 70) it has been "if one of the adjudicators Ins a direct pecuniary interest in the issue, the proceedings will be set aside even though none of his fellow adjudicators was thus disqualified; and it appears that the same principle applies where one adjudicator is subject to disqualification for likelihood of bias. In such cases the court will not consider whether the disqualified person did in fact influence the decision." 16. In Rex v Barnsley. In such cases the court will not consider whether the disqualified person did in fact influence the decision." 16. In Rex v Barnsley. M.B.S., 1976 (3) All. ER 452, it was observed "it must be remembered that in application for certiorari the applicant knows very little of what has happened behind the scene He only knows that the decision has been taken which is adverse to him, and he complains of it. His statement of grounds should not be treated as rigidly as a pleading in an ordinary civil action." From the above decisions the following principles relating to the rule of bias emerge : (1) It is not necessary to establish actual bias. A reasonable apprehension or likelihood of bias is sufficient to vitiate the proceedings. As stated b" Garner in his Administrative Law "Turning our attention to the substance of the rule relating to bias, the first point to emphasise is that it is rot necessary to prove actual bias. The natural justice bias rule looks to external appearances rather than the proof of actual improper exercise of power". In this connection Geoffrey Flick in his book Natural Justice has mentioned "There are two established lines of authority, one to the effect that an interest will disqualify if it gives rise to a real likelihood of bias, the other to the effect that all that is needed is a reasonoble suspicion of bias. It is the reasonable suspicion test which currently seems to hold away." It may also be pointed out here that in the case of Kirti Deshmankar (supra) the Honourable Supreme Court has used the words "reasonable likelihood of bias", and not "real likelihood of bias" This distinction between reall likelihood and reasonable likelihood is important, and in my opinon, even if there is no real likelihood of bias, a reasonble likelihood from the point of view of the petitioners will vitiate the proceedings. In G. Sarana's case (supra) the test laid down was "Whether there is a substantial possibility of bias animating the mind of the member against the aggrieved party." (2) Even if one member of the selection committee suffers from the disqualification of the rule of bias, then the entire selection or proceeding is vitiated because it is not possible to know to what extent such disqualified member influenced the others. (3) Where a person is disqualified due to rule of bias, he should disassociate himself from the proceedings. (4) Bias in a member of a recommendatory body will also vitiate the proceedings. 17. Shri Yatindra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, who has argued this case with great ability, has submitted that the rule of bias has been clearly violated in this case as the petitioner had reasonable apprehension that the respondent No. 4 was bias?d against them. I am in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The facts on record disclose that there was indeed a reasonable apprehension of bias in the minds of the petitioners against respondent No 4. 18. I am not holding that the respondent No. 4 was actually biased. However, I am certainly of the opinion that there was reasonable apprehension of bias in the minds of the petitioners against respondent No. 4, and in all fairness respondent No. 4 should have disassociated herself from the proceedings of the Central Grievance Board. As held in Neelima Misra v. Harminder Kumar, AIR 1990 SC 1402 , the shift now is to a broader notion of fairness or fair procedure in administrative action. In Star Enterprises v. City and Industrial Development Corporation, 1990 (3) SCC 280 it was observed "In recent times judicial review of administrative action has become expansive and is becoming wider day by day. The traditional limitations have been vanishing and the sphere of judicial scrutiny is being expanded." 19. In M. S Nalley Bharat Engineering Co. v. State of Bihar. 1990 (2) SCC 48 it was held "The State functionaries must act fairly and reasonably...... Fairness is rule to ensure that the vast power in the modern state is not abused........fairness is also a principle to ensure that a statutory authority arrives at a just decision either for promoting the interest or affecting the rights of persons." 20. From the above discussion it becomes clear that since respondent No 4 was a member of the Central Grievance Board the entire proceedings before the said Board are vitiated in law In my opinion, the proceedings before the Examination Grievance Board are also vitiated in law. It may be noted that the Examination Grievance Board consists of (1) Head of Department (2) other members of the Moderation Board (3) Teachers teaching the paper concerned, vide Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit. It may be noted that the Examination Grievance Board consists of (1) Head of Department (2) other members of the Moderation Board (3) Teachers teaching the paper concerned, vide Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit. The grievance of the petitioners as stated in paragarphs 15 and 16 of the writ petition is that no teacher of the subject was on the Moderation Board or Examination Grivance Board. Dr. F. M. Tripathi was the teacher concerned, who was teaching the subject, but he was not included in the said Board. In fact, it becomes evident that the respondent No 4 alone became the Examination Grievance Board and she alone submitted the report which should have been submitted by the Examination Grievance Board. Annexure-5 to the counter affidavit of the University makes this position clear. In my opinion, the Examination Grievance Board consists of other members also and not the respondent No 4 alone, and hence she alone could not have submitted the report of the Examination Grievance Board. A perusal of the Annexure- 5 to the counter affidavit of the University also indicates that the respondent No. 4 has some personal rivalry against the Head of Department, Dr. Poornima Srivastava. However, I need n t go into this aspect of the matter 21. In view of the above illegalities I am of the opinion that this writ petition deserves to be allowed. The reports of the Examination Grievance Board as well as the Central Grievance Board (Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit of respondent No- 4) are quashed. The decision of the University as communicated by the letter dated 7-8-91 (Annexure-6 to the petition) is also quashed. 22. In view of the fact that there has already been a long delay in the matter, since the examination was held in May, 1991, and since the supplementary examination of the petitioners has already been held, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter to the University authorities. Hence I am of the opinion that the supplementary examination should be treated as a re-examination In this connection it may be mentioned that it has been alleged in paragraph 21 (b) of the writ petition that there was a boycott of the examination of M. Sc. Chemistry final in 1991 and the University ordered re-examination. This allegation has not been denied in the counter affidavit of the University. Chemistry final in 1991 and the University ordered re-examination. This allegation has not been denied in the counter affidavit of the University. Hence, I see no reason why the petitioners should be discriminated against. Moreover, since a supplementary examination has already been held of the petitioners, I am of the opinion, that it will be convenient if the said examination is treated as a re-examination. In this way the petitioners will also be able to get their position in the merit list and will not be prejudiced in any manner. Before parting with this case,, I would like to mention that I am not justifying the walkouts by students on every odd occasion However, I am of the opinion that while students must behave in a disciplined manner, teachers must also conduct themselves in such a way that the students do not have a feeling that they will be unfairly treated. A teacher by his/her hard work, patience, and fair treatment should win the confidence and respect of the students. In our culture a Guru has been given the highest place For some reason or the other, it appears that the respondent No 4 has not been able to win the confidence of the students of the subjects of Food and Nutrition, and they have a feeling that she favours students of her own subject. I am not casting any aspersion on the respondent No. 4, and I am not holding that she has necessarily favoured her own students. However, I am of the opinion that she has unfortunately not been able to project herself as a person who is fair with students who do not belong to her subject A large amount of trouble in educational instiutions can be avoided if teachers conduct themselves such that they were the respect and confidence of all students of the institution whether of his/her own subject or not, and all students respect and look up to such a teacher with reverence. 23. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed and a mandamus is issued to the University to treat the supplementary examination of the petitioners as a re-examination and to announce their results within one month of production of a certified copy of this judgment, and prepars the over all merit list accordingly. There is no order as to costs. Petition allowed.