A hearing is essential to determine the validity of administrative disengagement, particularly when distinct recruitment processes and individual circumstances are at stake.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. In this RVWPET, the Petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 22.12.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.6290 of 2018 dismissing her prayer, wherein the Petitioner had challenged the order dated 26.03.2018 of the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj disengaging her from the post of Swechhasevi Shikshya Sahayak on the ground that she was engaged after 26.09.2003.

2. The Petitioner now seeks to recall of that judgment on the ground that it was rendered without considering the facts pleaded and submissions made in the Writ Petition by the Petitioner and the relevant law, resulting an error apparent on the face of the record.

3. For clarity, the operative portion of the aforesaid judgment under review is reproduced below:

“37. It is not disputed that the petitioner was not provided with a show cause notice before being disengaged. Principle of natural justice is one of the major principles to be iterated in administrative jurisprudence. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason - perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling it is felt that a fair hearing ’would make no difference’ - meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker - then no legal duty to afford a hearing arises.

38. Accordingly, it has been held by the Apex Court that no one can complain of not being given an opportunity to make representations if such an opportunity would have availed him nothing’. In such situations, fair procedures appear to serve no purpose since ’right’ result can be secured without according such treatment to the individual.

39. Therefore, even if it is found by the Court that there is a violation of principles of natural justice, the Courts have held that it may not be necessary to strike down the action and refer the matter back to the authorities to take fresh decision after complying with the procedural requirement in those cases where non-grant of hearing has not caused any prejudice to the person against whom the action is taken. Therefore, every violation of a facet of natural justice may not lead to the conclusion that order passed is always null and void. The validity of the order has to be decided on the touchstone of ’prejudice’. The ultimate test is always the same, viz., the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing.

40. In M/s. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd.) v. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. & Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 281 , the Supreme Court, while reiterating the position that rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice, held that, at the same time, it would be of no use if it amounts to completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. It was so explained in the following terms:

“Right of hearing to a necessary party is a valuable right. Denial of such right is serious breach of statutory procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural justice. In these appeals preferred by the holder of lands and some other transferees, we have found that the terms of government grant did not permit transfers of land without permission of the State as grantor. Remand of cases of a group of transferees who were not heard, would, therefore, be of no legal consequence, more so, when on this legal question all affected parties have got full opportunity of hearing before the High Court and in this appeal before this Court. Rules of natural justice a