Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P & Ors.

1 SCR 512 : (1987) 4 SCC 611; Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-Education) Higher Secondary School [1993] 3 SCR 863 : (1993) 4 SCC 10; S Parthasarathi v. State of AP [1974] 1 SCR 697 : (1974) 3 SCC 459; SK Golap and Others v. Bhuban Chandra Panda, 1990 SCC OnLine Cal 264; GN Nayak v Goa University [2002] 1 SCR 636 : (2002) 2 SCC 712; Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel [1985] Supp. 2 SCR 131 : (1985) 3 SCC 398; Charanjit Singh v. Harinder Sharma (2002) 9 SCC 732; Javid Rasool Bhat v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1984) 2 SCC 682; Jaswant Singh Nerwal v. State of Punjab [1991] 1 SCR 411 : (1991) Supp. 1 SCC 313; State Govt. Houseless Harijan Employees Association v. State of Karnataka [2000] Supp. 5 SCR 483 : (2001) 1 SCC 610; East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [1963] 3 SCR 338 : AIR 1962 SC 1893; Uma Nath Pandey and Ors. v. State of UP [2009] 4 SCR 374 : (2009) 12 SCC 40; Fareed Ahmed v.

Ahmedabad Municipality [1977] 1 SCR 71 : AIR 1976 SC 2095; Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Government of Delhi [1975] 1 SCR 597 : (1975) 4 SCC 298; Mysore SRT Corp v. Mirza Khasim [1977] 2 SCR 282 : AIR 1977 SC 747; Jayantilal Ratanchand Shah v. Reserve Bank of India [1996] Supp. 4 SCR 443 : (1996) 9 SCC 650; United Planters’ Association of Southern India v. KG Sangameswaran [1997] 2 SCR 756 : (1997) 4 SCC 741; Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [1985] Supp. 2 SCR 51 : (1985) 3 SCC 545; Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan [2000] Supp. 2 SCR 684 : (2000) 7 SCC 529 – referred to. Hira Lal Patel v. Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Sarangarh (1998) 2 MP WN 39; Laxmidhar v. State of Orissa, AIR 1974 Ori 127; Kashiram Dalmia v. State, AIR 1978 Pat 265; G Rajalakshmi v. Appellate Authority, AIR 1980 AP 100; Serajuddin Co. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1974 Cal 296 – referred to. Council of Civil Service Unions v.

Minister for Civil Service, 1985 AC 374; Dimes v. The Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 HLC 759; R v. Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256; Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC) v. Lannon (1969) 1 QB 577; Porter v. Magill (2002) 1 All ER 465; Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] AC 40; Annamunthodo v. Oilfield Workers’ Trade Union [1961] AC 945 (PC); Leary v. National Union of Vehicle Builders (1970) 2 All ER 713; Calvin v. Carr (1979) 2 WLR 755; Lloyd v. McMahon (1987) 1 AC 625; R v. Gough, 1993 AC 646; Australian Workers’ Union v. Bowen (No. 2) (1948) 77 C.L.R. 601 – referred to. Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. & Ors. 1178 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Books and Periodicals Cited H. W. R. Wade, Administrative Law (5th Edition); H W R Wade and C F Forsyth, Administrative Law (Oxford University Press, 11th ed, 2014); I.P. Massey, Administrative Law (8th Edition, 2012); Lawrence H. Tribe, ‘American Constitutional Law’ (The Foundation Press 1978) – referred to.

List of Acts Panchayat Raj Act Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993; Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. List of Keywords Audi alteram partem; Rule against bias; Allegation of bias/mere suspicion of bias; Principles of natural justice; Nemo judex in causa sua; Selection; Appointment; School teachers; Shiksha karmi(s); Selection committee; Relatives of the candidates; Family members; Selection not vitiated; Interference with selections; Procedural impropriety; Rule of fair hearing; Recuse; Recusal; Resolution for recusal; Doctrine of necessity; Judicial review of administrative actions; Collector; Ineffective hearing; Notice not issued; Without issuing notice to the selectees; Absence of opportunity of hearing; Violation of right of hearing; Prejudice; Full jurisdiction. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4806 of 2011 From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2008 of the High Court of M.P at Jabalpur in WA No.

892 of 2008 With Civil Appeal Nos. 4807, 4808 and 4809 of 2011 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Vivek Tankha, Sr. Adv., Neeraj Shekhar, Mrs. Kshama Sharma, Ramendra Vikram Singh, Divyam Sikka, Amrendra Singh, Ram Bachan Choudhary, Rajesh Maurya Singh, Rajesh Maurya. Advs. for the Respondents: Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Saurabh Singh, Shiv Vinayak Gupta, Ms. Shruti Verma, Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Parth Sarathi, Gyanendra Vikram Singh, Ms. Soumya Gulati. Supreme Court Reports [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1179 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Heard Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant. The respondents are represented by Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, learned counsel and Mr. Avdhesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel.

This matter is posted before this larger Bench on account of the split verdict rendered on 4.4.2024 by the two learned Judges of this Court. The case pertains to the validity of appointments made for the post of school teachers (Shiksha Karmi Grade III) in Janpad Panchayat, Gaurihar in the year 1998. Four Civil Appeals were filed before this Court by ten persons, who are alleged to be the relatives of the members of the selection committee and were placed in the final select list of 249 Shiksha Karmis.

While Justice JK Maheshwari upheld the finding to set aside the selection of Shiksha Karmis on account of the violation of the first limb of the principle of natural justice i.e. rule against bias, Justice KV Vishwanathan has however upheld the selection, citing inter alia, a breach of the right to a fair hearing. Therefore, in this case, we are confronted with a conflict between the two foundational principles of natural justice i.e. rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem). I. RELEVANT FACTS

Initially, one Kunwar Vijay Bahadur Singh Bundela challenged the preparation of the select list by filing an appeal before the Collector, District Chhatarpur, who quashed the select list, vide order dated 31.8.1998 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. Thereafter, a fresh select list consisting of 249 candidates including the names of appellants (and four others) was published on 16.9.1998 and the appointment order was issued on 17.9.1998. The selection and appointment of the appellants was challenged by an unsuccessful candidate- Archana Mishra (Respondent No. 4 herein), before the Collector, District Chatarpur, Madhya Pradesh, under Section 3 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995(for short “Appeal and Revision Rules,1995) alleging that elements of nepotism, corruption and bias have seeped into the selection Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. & Ors. 1180 [2025] 1 S.C.R. process because of the composition of the selection committee. The Collector, accepting the challenger’s contention vide order dated 02.06.1999, set aside the appellants’ appointment by concluding that the recruitment was vitiated on account of bias and nepotism. The Collector found fault with the composition of the selection committee, some of whom were the family members of the appellants herein and opined that the award of marks in the selection, was improper. Relying on Section 40(c) and Section 100 of Panchayat Raj Act Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short “Adhiniyam, 1993), it was noted that office bearers cannot facilitate financial gains to relatives. The Collector further noted that: ‘…it is proved that the appointment of these relatives could not be deemed to be according to the prescribed procedure and the scheme and therefore, it is not necessary to call them up’.

Relying on the MP High Court’s judgment in Hira Lal Patel v Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Sarangarh1, the Collector without issuing notice to the selectees observed that if the appointment is not made as per the scheme, it can be terminated without giving any opportunity of hearing.

Aggrieved by the above interference with the selection, the appellants filed a Revision petition before the Commissioner, Revenue, Sagar Division under section 5 of the Appeal and Revision Rules,1995. The selectees contended therein that without arraying them and without affording them any hearing, the Collector could not have interfered with the selection and this would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Revision Petition was however dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 14.3.2000. In the said order the Commissioner observed in para (6) that the selection is contrary to Section 40(C) of the Adhiniyam, 1993. The Revisional Authority brushed aside the plea of non-joinder and of not affording opportunity of hearing, by relying on the admission of the relationship of the appellants with the members of the selection committee, as noted in the reply filed by the Chief Executive Officer.

The appellants then preferred a writ appeal which was dismissed by the Division bench of the High Court on 15.12.2008. The Division Bench noted inter alia that: ‘though it was imperative on the part of appellants to implead the affected parties, yet as the affected parties had been given full opportunity from all aspects by the revisional forum as well as by the Learned Single Judge, we do not think it apt and apposite to quash the order and remand the matter to the Collector’.

Relying on decisions of this Court on bias4, the Division Bench observed that bias is a state of mind at work and when the degree of relationship is in quite proximity, bias has to be inferred. 2 3 4 (1996) 3 SCC 364 (1969) 2 SCC 262 A.K. Kraipak v Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262; J. Mohapatra & Co. v. State of Orissa, (1984) 4 SCC 103, Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417, Kirti Deshmankar v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 104, Gurdip Singh v. State of Punjab, (1997) 10 SCC 641, Utkal University v. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi, (1999) 2 SCC 193, G.N. Nayak v. Goa University, (2002) 2 SCC 712, Govt. of T.N. v. Munuswamy Mudaliar, (1988) Supp. SCC 651 : AIR 1988 SC 2232, Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation v. Encon Builders (I) (P) Ltd., (2003) 7 SCC 418. Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. & Ors. 1182 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Thereafter when the matter reached the Supreme Court, Justice KV Vishwanathan concluded that the selection of appellants was erroneously set aside, in breach of the principle of audi alteram partem. It was further held that the principle must be adhered to at the original stage. Furthermore, Rule 9 of the Appeal and Revision Rules, 1995 was not complied with. It was also observed that the orders of the Collector & Commissioner made no reference either to definition of ‘relative’ in explanation to Section 40(c) of Adhiniyam nor to the resolution providing for recusal. Non-impleadment of parties amounted to ‘no opportunity at all’ for hearing was the conclusion reached by Justice KV Vishwanathan.

On the other hand, Justice J.K. Maheshwari upheld the decision to cancel the appointment of the appellants and opined that the first limb of natural justice i.e. ‘rule against bias’ was irrefutably proved, as reasonable likelihood of bias was established. The plea of non- impleadment was considered to be a useless formality. It was further held that unless prejudice is demonstrated, mere non-joinder at the initial stage does not violate the principles of natural justice. II. SUBMISSIONS

The foundational contention of the appellants is that since their appointments were cancelled without affording them any hearing and without arraying them as a party in the challenge by the respondent no. 4(Archana Mishra), the adverse decision taken against the appellants, is legally unsustainable. Mr. Vivek Tankha, the learned Senior Counsel would argue that an incorrect narrative was the basis for the allegation made by the respondent No. 4, about unfair selection. It is specifically pointed out that none of the relatives of the candidates had participated during the selection of the appellants. More importantly, the related persons had not awarded any marks to influence the selection. Specifically adverting to the marks obtained by the challenger and the selectees, the appellants argue that it was a fair selection and that intervention was unmerited.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent, Mrinal Gopal Elker, and Avdhesh Kumar Singh, would rely on Section 40(c) of the Adhiniyam,1993 to project that the said section provides that ‘any of the office bearers shall not cause financial gain to his relatives’. According to them, the presence of close relatives in the selection process vitiated the process of selection of Shiksha Karmis. They Supreme Court Reports [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1183 projected that non-adherence to the principles of audi alteram partem, if any, was cured by the proceedings before the commissioner wherein appellants were given full opportunity. On that basis, it was submitted that the non- granting of opportunity of hearing by the Collector at the original stage was inconsequential. According to the respondent, the reasonable likelihood of bias in selection is established by the close relationship between the Committee members and the selected candidates who have been awarded high marks in comparison to other candidates in the interview process. III. ISSUES

Going by the above submissions, the following broad issues fall for our consideration: A. Whether the selection is vitiated for violation of the first limb of natural justice i.e. rule against bias? B. Where it is a case of violation of the principle of audi alteram partem? Is demonstration of prejudice necessary to succeed with a claim of violation of the principle of audi alteram partem? C. Whether the breach of the principle of audi alteram partem at the original stage can be cured, at the Revisional stage? IV. DISCUSSION

Judicial review of administrative actions are permissible on the grounds of illegality, unreasonableness or irrationality and procedural irregularity5. Lord Diplock6 succinctly described each of the aforementioned grounds for judicial review as under: “By “illegality” as a ground for judicial review I mean that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. Whether he has or not is par excellence a justiciable question to be decided, in the event of dispute, by those persons, the Judges, by whom the judicial power of the State is exercisable. 5