Back
HRISHIKESH ROY, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, S. V. N. BHATTI
Krishnadatt Awasthy – Appellant
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent
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 person
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
