The principle of audi alteram partem mandates that no individual can be adversely affected without being given an opportunity to be heard; thus, non-compliance with this principle invalidates administrative decisions.

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 04/04/2024 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).

4. 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 31/08/1998 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 16/09/1998 and the appointment order was issued on 17/09/1998. 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 S.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 S.40(c) and S.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'.

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.

6. Aggrieved by the above interference with the selection, the appellants filed a Revision petition before the Commissioner, Revenue, Sagar Division under S.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 14/03/2000. In the said order the Commissioner observed in para (6) that the selection is contrary to S.40(C) of the Adhiniyam, 1993. The Revisional Authority brus