1. Selection and appointment of candidates for Shiksha Karmi Grade-III — Allegations of nepotism and bias involving selection committee members — Challenge under MP Panchayat Raj Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 5 , 14 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 294
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Krishnadatt Awasthy – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4806 of 2011
With
Sumer Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4807 of 2011
Smt. Ramrani Singh – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4808 of 2011
Smt. Shyama Dewedi & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4809 of 2011
Decided on : 04-04-2024
Important Points
The selection process for Shiksha Karmi Grade-III was invalidated due to bias from selection committee members in familial relationships, violating natural justice principles.
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Employment
Act Referred
Australian Jockey Club Act: S.32
COAL MINES REGULATIONS: Reg.26
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.317(1), Art.226, Art.136, Art.311(2)
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.168
LAND ACQUISITION ACT: S.5(a)
Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Appeal and Revision Rules: R.5, R.3, R.9, R.5(1)(b)
MADHYA PRADESH PANCHAYATS RAJ ADHINIYAM: S.95(1), S.53(2), S.70(1)
PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT: S.40(c), S.100
COAL MINES REGULATIONS: Reg.26
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.317(1), Art.226, Art.136, Art.311(2)
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.168
LAND ACQUISITION ACT: S.5(a)
Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Appeal and Revision Rules: R.5, R.3, R.9, R.5(1)(b)
MADHYA PRADESH PANCHAYATS RAJ ADHINIYAM: S.95(1), S.53(2), S.70(1)
PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT: S.40(c), S.100
Headnote
(A) M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 - Sections 40(c) and 100 - Challenges to the appointments of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III - The selection of candidates was interfered with due to bias arising from familial relationships with members of the selection committee, violating natural justice principles - Selection process rendered vitiated due to undue influence from relatives - Orders by Collector and Commissioner upheld by courts below despite non-compliance with rules on comprehensively affording hearing opportunities due to identification of candidates as affected parties. (Paras 1, 2, 36-77)
(B) Principle of Natural Justice - Applicability - Non-joinder of parties in initial proceedings concerning accusations of bias - Such violations not curable by subsequent appellate processes, especially without proper legal grounds for disqualification of appointment contrary to laid down statutory frameworks. (Paras 34-60)
(B) Principle of Natural Justice - Applicability - Non-joinder of parties in initial proceedings concerning accusations of bias - Such violations not curable by subsequent appellate processes, especially without proper legal grounds for disqualification of appointment contrary to laid down statutory frameworks. (Paras 34-60)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- service law
Advocates appeared:
For the appellant :Neeraj Shekhar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mrinal Gopal Elker, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Advocates
For the appellant :Neeraj Shekhar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mrinal Gopal Elker, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Violation of natural justice due to non-joinder before the Collector — Effect of recusal of committee members on the reasonable likelihood of bias. (Para 5 , 14 , 33 , 38 , 44 , 22 , 23 , 32 )
3. Analysis of reasonable likelihood of bias — Evaluation of prejudice theory in non-joinder cases — Impact of recusal resolutions on the validity of selection. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 35 , 37 , 44 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 )
4. Determination of whether total denial of notice at the original stage is curable by subsequent limited revisional proceedings or judicial review. (Para 42 , 43 , 48 , 59 , 60 , 61 )
5. Divergent views expressed by the judges — Matter referred to a larger bench for constitution. (Para 49 , 77 )
6. What is the test for reasonable likelihood of bias in selection committees?
The test is not whether actual bias existed, but whether a reasonable person, knowing the facts, would think there was a real possibility of bias, based on human probabilities and ordinary conduct. (Para 24 , 34 , 66 , 67 )
7. Does the failure to implead a party at the initial stage always vitiate a proceeding?
Not necessarily. If the party was later given a fair hearing and no actual prejudice is demonstrated, the initial procedural lapse may not vitiate the order, provided the breach was not a total denial of opportunity. (Para 40 , 42 , 43 , 39 , 41 , 46 )
8. Can a breach of natural justice at the original stage be cured by an appellate or revisional hearing?
It depends on the scope of the higher body's jurisdiction. If the revisional power is limited to points of law, it cannot cure a total denial of notice at the original stage. (Para 48 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 59 , 60 , 61 )
9. Does the recusal of a committee member during the interview of a relative eliminate the likelihood of bias?
Recusal can mitigate bias if the member is completely dissociated from the process and does not know the marks of the relative or other candidates, preventing a reasonable suspicion of bias. (Para 33 , 62 , 66 , 67 , 69 )
10. What is the useless formality theory in administrative law?
It suggests that where facts are admitted and undisputed, and the outcome would be the same regardless of a hearing, the court may dispense with procedural formalities to avoid futile exercises. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 )
JUDGMENT
J.K. MAHESHWARI J.
1. After perusal of the judgment and view expressed by esteemed brother Justice K.V. Viswanathan, in the facts of this case, I am not in a position to agree with the reasoning and conclusions as drawn by him, for which detailed reasons supporting my view is in succeeding paragraphs.
2. As per the facts of the case, the controversy in the present case revolves around selection and appointment for the post of Shiksha Karmi GradeIII in Janpad Panchayat Gaurihar, District Chhatarpur in the State of Madhya Pradesh which relates back to the year 1998. The appellants who are ten (10) in number and four (4) other candidates, in total fourteen (14) candidates who were close relatives of the members of selection committee, had been placed in the final selection list of 249 Shiksha Karmi GradeIII. For ready reference the appellants and their relations are described in a tabular form as under:
| Sl. No. | Candidate | Committee Member | Relationship |
| 1. | Krishnadatt Awasthy | Pushpa Dvivedi (Chairman) | Maternal Nephew |
| 2. | Shyama Dvivedi | Pushpa Dvivedi (Chairman) | Sisterinlaw (Nanad) |
| 3. | Prabha Dvivedi | Pushpa Dvivedi (Chairman) | Sisterinlaw (Devrani) |
| 4. | Rekha Avasthi | Pushpa Dvivedi (Chairman) | Niece |
| 5 | Prabhesh Kumari | Pushpa Dvivedi (Chairman) | Niece |
| 6. | Devendra Awasthi | Pushpa Dvivedi (Chairman) | Nephew (Sister’s son) |
| 7. | Sumer Singh | Swami Singh (Member) | Son |
| 8. | Ramrani Singh | Swami Singh (Member) | Daughter in law |
| 9. | Gita Rawat | Pushpa Dvivedi (Chairman) | Sister |
| 10. | Rita Dwivedi | Pushpa Dvivedi (Chairman) | Sister of Vibha who is Devrani of Chairman |
Thus, from the table above, the relationship of appellants with the members of the selection committee is apparent and undisputed.
3. It is not inapposite to mention that at the previous stage of selection, after preparation of the select list of Shiksha Karmi GradeIII by Janpad Panchayat, Gaurihar, the same was challenged by one Kunwar Vijay Bahadur Singh Bundela by filing an appeal before the Collector, District Chhatarpur, who vide order dated 31.08.1998 quashed the selection list and remitted the matter for fresh selection. Pursuant to the directions, fresh selection was conducted and the final selection list consisting of 249 candidates including the names of appellants and four others was published on 16.09.1998. As per the said select list appointment orders were issued on 17.09.1998 appointing the candidates including the present appellants. Being aggrieved by the selection and appointment of the appellants who were near relatives of members of the selection committee and nonselection of Smt. Archana Mishra who was an aspirant, filed an appeal before the Collector, District Chhatarpur on various grounds including the allegations as quoted in paragraph 14 of the order passed by esteemed brother. It is not in dispute that the present appellants were not impleaded as parties in the appeal before the Collector, though Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Block Development Education Officer and the President of the Education Committee were arrayed as parties.
4. On issuing notice in the said appeal, the counter affidavit was filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, attaching the certificate given by the Sarpanch of the Panchayat acknowledging the relationship of the selected/appointed candidates with the members of selection committee. As per the material placed, the findings recorded by the Collector are relevant, which is reproduced as under:
“3. ……So far as the question of selection of the relatives of the members of Select Committee is concerned, it is proved that the members of the Committee have selected their relatives and the same is against the principles of law. The facts given in th
