Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HRISHIKESH ROY, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Krishnadatt Awasthy – Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(S). 4806 of 2011 With Civil Appeal No. 4807 of 2011 Civil Appeal No. 4808 of 2011 Civil Appeal No. 4809 of 2011
Decided on : 29-01-2025
(1) Review -- judicial review of administrative actions -- permissible on grounds of illegality, unreasonableness or irrationality and procedural irregularity.(1996) 3 SCC 709, (1994) 6 SCC 651, Council of Civil Service 1985 AC 374 (HL) and (2022) 1 SCC 294 relied on. [Para 14
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- scope of interference -- service matter -- appointment -- Courts exercising writ jurisdiction do not interfere with selections made by expert bodies by reassessing comparative merits of candidates -- interference with selections is limited to decisions vitiated by bias, malafides and violation of statutory provisions -- administrative action can be reviewed on the ground of proportionality if it affects fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 and 21 of Constitution. (1990) 1 SCC 305, (2000) 8 SCC 395, 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 481, (1995) 3 SCC 383, (1988) 2 SCC 242, (2008) 2 SCC 119, (2018) 15 SCC 796, (2001) 2 SCC 386 and (1997) 7 SCC 463 referred to. [Para 15
(3) Procedure -- process for arriving at decision is equally significant as decision itself -- if procedure is not fair, decision cannot be possibly endorsed. [Para 16
(4) Natural Justice -- principles of natural justice guarantee fair play in action -- two facets of natural justice -- rule against bias and rule of fair hearing -- reasoned order has also been regarded as a third facet -- it holds utmost significance in ensuring fairness of process. (1978) 1 SCC 248, (1990) 4 SCC 594, (1976) 2 SCC 981, (2010) 10 SCC 744 and (2010) 9 SCC 496 relied on. [Para 16
(5) Natural Justice -- when statute specifies procedure for administrative decision-making, principles of natural justice supplement but do not substitute statutory procedure -- however, even if statute does not provide administrative procedure, authorities are bound to make decisions in adherence to principles of natural justice. (1969) 2 SCC 262 relied on. [Para 17
(6) Natural Justice -- nemo judex in causa sua -- rule against bias -- extends not only to actual bias but also to the appearance of bias -- it is subject to rule of necessity and yields to it -- doctrine of necessity serves as an exception to rule against bias -- it recognizes that decision-making bodies need to function even in circumstances where potential conflicts of interests may arise. (1852) 3 HLC 759, [1924] 1 KB 256, (1969) 1 QB 577, 1993 AC 646, (2002) 1 All ER 465, 1957 SCC Online SC 10, (1987) 4 SCC 611, (1993) 4 SCC 10, S (1974) 3 SCC 459, 1990 SCC Online Cal. 264, (2002) 2 SCC 712, 2024 SCC Online SC 3219, (1985) 3 SCC 398, (1981) 1 SCC 664, J. Mohapatra (1984) 4 SCC 103 and H. W. R. Wade's Administrative Law (5th Edition) relied on. [Paras 25 & 30
(7) Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 (M. P.) -- R. 5 -- M. P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 -- Rr. 3 and 9 -- M. P. Panchayat Raj Act Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 -- Ss. 40(c) and 100 -- appointment of Shiksha Karmi Grade III -- challenge to validity of appointment -- selectees related to members of selection committee -- held -- recusal is an acceptable mechanism and serves to eliminate any reasonable likelihood of bias -- concerned member of selection committee recused and did not award any marks -- cannot be accepted that such relative influenced selection -- a few candidates do not fall within statutory definition of 'relative' as per Adhiniyam, 1993 -- absence of opportunity of hearing at initial stage prevented selectees to show that no relative influenced their selection -- selection is at village level where it is very likely that people involved would know each other -- selection not vitiated on account of violation of nemo judex rule. (2002) 9 SCC 732 relied on. (1969) 2 SCC 262, (1984) 2 SCC 682, (1985) 4 SCC 417 and 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 313 relied on. [Paras 28, 29, 31 & 35
(8) Natural Justice -- audi alteram partem -- right to fair hearing -- distinction must be made between 'no opportunity' or 'no adequate opportunity' -- in case of no opportunity, order passed would undoubtedly be invalid and authority may be asked to conduct proceedings afresh according to rule of fair hearing -- in case of no adequate opportunity, effect of violation of a facet of rule of fair hearing has to be examined from standpoint of prejudice. [1964] AC 40, (1978) 1 SCC 405, (1981) 1 SCC 664, (1978) 1 SCC 248, (1985) 3 SCC 545, (1980) 4 SCC 379, (200) 7 SCC 529, (1996) 3 SCC 364, (2015) 8 SCC 519, (2021) 19 SCC 706, (2023) 13 SCC 401, 2024 SCC Online SC 3219, H. W. R. Wade and C. F. Forsyth's Administrative Law (11th Edition) and I. P. Massey's Administrative Law (8th Edition) relied on. [Paras 44 & 68
(9) Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 (M. P.) -- R. 5 -- M. P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 -- Rr. 3 and 9 -- M. P. Panchayat Raj Act Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 -- Ss. 40 and 100 -- appointment of Shiksha Karmi Grade III -- challenge to validity of appointment -- selectees related to members of selection committee -- without issuing notice to selectees, Collector observed that if appointment is not made as per scheme, it can be terminated without giving opportunity of hearing -- held -- question about whether prejudice was caused due to non-observance of the principles of natural justice could not be raised where such principles are incorporated into statutory procedure -- S. 40 of Adhiniyam, 1993 clearly provided for opportunity of hearing -- absence of notice strikes at fundamental core of procedural fairness, rendering decision invalid unless exceptional circumstances justify such deviation -- vitiation of selection was not only a breach of principles of natural justice but also contrary to express statutory provision that required opportunity to show cause and opportunity to provide self-defence -- prejudice theory must be understood as exception to general rule and cannot be the norm -- there is gross violation of principle of audi alteram partem. (2001) 1 SCC 610, AIR 1962 SC 1893 and (2009) 12 SCC 40 relied on. 1964 AC 40 referred to. (1996) 3 SCC 364 distinguished. [Paras 50, 53, 54 & 65
(10) Natural Justice -- denial of natural justice at initial stage -- when one party is denied opportunity to present their case, initial decision fails to provide meaningful guidance to appellate authority in achieving fair and just resolution -- defect at initial stage cannot generally be cured at appellate stage. [Paras 60 & 67
(11) Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 (M. P.) -- R. 5 -- M. P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 -- Rr. 3, 5(b) and 9 -- M. P. Panchayat Raj Act Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 -- Ss. 40 and 100 -- denial of opportunity of hearing at initial stage -- effect -- R. 5(b) of Appeal and Revision Rules clearly provided that application for revision could be only entertained on point of law and not on facts -- ineffective hearing at initial stage taints entire decision-making process leading to a cascade of flawed orders at subsequent stages -- primary purpose of natural justice is to assist administration in reaching sound decisions at the outset, reducing likelihood of decisions being overturned later -- its significance lies in fostering fair and well-informed decision-making at the very first instance -- defect at initial stage cannot generally be cured at appellate stage -- ex parte decision to set aside appellants' selection stands vitiated. Writ Appeals No. 892 of 2008, 878 of 2008, 896 of 2008 and 879 of 2008 set aside. (1948) 77 CLR 601, [1961] AC 945 (PC), (1970) 2 All ER 713, (1979) 2 WLR 755, (1987) 1 AC 625, (1986) 4 SCC 537, AIR 1976 SC 2095, (1975) 4 SCC 298, AIR 1977 SC 747, (1990) 1 SCC 613, (1996) 9 SCC 650, (1997) 4 SCC 741, 1958 SCR 595, (1977) 2 SCC 457, H. W. R. Wade's Administrative Law (1982 Edition) and Lawrence H. Tribe's American Constitutional Law (1978) relied on. 1998 (II) MPWN 39, (1991) 1 SCC 104, (1997) 10 SCC 641, (1999) 2 SCC 193, (2002) 2 SCC 712, 1988 Supp. SCC 651, (2003) 7 SCC 418, AIR 1974 Ori. 127, AIR 1978 Pat. 265, AIR 1980 AP 100 and AIR 1974 Cal. 296 48 referred to. [Paras 65 to 67 & 70
(12) Natural Justice -- rule against bias -- allegation of bias can only be proved if facts are established after giving opportunity of hearing -- this process requires fair and transparent procedure in which concerned parties are given adequate opportunity to present their case -- for allegation of bias to be proved, it is imperative that procedural safeguards of fair hearing are observed allowing for establishment of relevant facts. [Para 69
Key Points: - The judgment discusses scope of judicial review of administrative actions and limits interference in expert selections to bias, malafides, or statutory violations (!) (!) (!) . - It analyzes the test for bias (real likelihood of bias) and the role of recusal/necessity in small/jurisdictional contexts (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It holds that a gross violation of audi alteram partem (no opportunity) at initial stage cannot generally be cured by later appellate proceedings; statutory procedures and opportunity to be heard are crucial (!) (!) (!) . - It emphasizes that where statute prescribes hearing rights, such rights are mandatory and must be observed; lack of notice undermines procedural fairness (!) (!) - (!) . - It references the principle that prejudice justification cannot always salvage a lack of hearing, though later cases discuss prejudice exceptions (!) (!) (!) . - It notes that the doctrine of Leary/Calvin may apply to cure in exceptional circumstances, but generally a defect at initial stage is not cured on appeal (!) - (!) . - It cites that Rule 9/Appeal provisions require notices and opportunity to be heard in revision/appeal processes (!) . - It concludes by upholding appeal and setting aside lower court/collector orders due to natural justice violations (audi alteram partem) and bias concerns (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to teacher selection (Para 2) |
| 2. conflict of natural justice principles (Para 3) |
| 3. initial challenge by kunwar vijay bahadur singh bundela (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. arguments by appellants (Para 11) |
| 5. judicial review grounds (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66) |
| 6. conclusion on natural justice (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72) |
JUDGMENT :
Hrishikesh Roy J
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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
4. 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 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:
5. Relying on the MP High Court’s judgment in Hira Lal Patel v Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Sarangarh, (1998) 2 MP WN 39, 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.
The principle of audi alteram partem safeguards against arbitrary decisions by ensuring every affected party receives a fair hearing, thus rendering decisions void if this standard is not upheld.
The selection process for Shiksha Karmi Grade-III was invalidated due to bias from selection committee members in familial relationships, violating natural justice principles.
Point of Law : Appellants being covered by the phrase "parties concerned" as used by the learned Single Judge have full rights to appear before the said authority and furnish all its documents and ev....
The doctrine of bias and the principle of natural justice were central to the court's decision, emphasizing the need for a fair and transparent selection process free from nepotism and favoritism.
Cancellation of selection and reversion invalid if due to departmental evaluation errors without candidate fault, prior hearing, or inquiry; natural justice violated; innocents protected by equity, l....
The inclusion of a biased committee member in a selection process violates natural justice, resulting in a decision being set aside due to reasonable apprehensions of bias.
Disputes which may be referred to Registrar for decision - There cannot be any hard-and-fast rule of universal application for allocating the marks for viva voce vis-a-vis marks for written examinati....
Public employment recruitment must adhere to fairness and transparency principles; systemic irregularities justify cancellation of selection processes. No vested rights exist without appointment lett....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
