The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, has struck down a preliminary inquiry into alleged irregularities concerning the 2013 recruitment process for the post of Junior Assistant at the Zila Parishad, Alwar. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over the matter, ruled that an administrative officer who had supervised the recruitment process could not subsequently initiate and direct an investigation into that same process without violating the fundamental principles of natural justice.

The dispute arose after petitioners, who were involved in the 2013 recruitment drive, challenged a series of letters and reports issued by the district administration in 2025 and 2026. The recruitment process had been conducted under the supervision of the then-Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Zila Parishad, Alwar, Artika Shukla. Years later, in her capacity as the District Collector of Alwar, the same officer authorized a preliminary inquiry into alleged irregularities within that same recruitment cycle. Based on the report submitted by a committee under her administrative control, the state authorities moved to issue charge-sheets against the petitioners, prompting the legal challenge before the High Court.

In his ruling, Justice Dhand emphasized that the core issue was not whether actual bias had tainted the investigation, but whether the circumstances created a reasonable apprehension of partiality. The Court invoked the centuries-old legal maxim nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa —that no one should be a judge in their own cause. This principle, the Court noted, serves as the bedrock of jurisprudence, ensuring that those in positions of authority maintain an impartial and independent mind when determining outcomes that impact the livelihoods and rights of subordinates.

“The question is not that whether the authority was actually biased or arrived at a decision based on any partiality, but when the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of others that there is likelihood of bias affecting the decision, then the proceedings cannot be upheld,” the Court observed.

The legal challenge centered on the procedural unfairness of an officer investigating a project she once directed. The petitioners argued that because the recruitment was carried out under the direct instructions of the officer who later ordered the inquiry, she could not reasonably be viewed as an impartial authority. The Court agreed, noting that such a dual role creates an inherent conflict between an officer’s past actions as a supervisor and their present role as a judge of those actions.

To reinforce this point, the Court drew upon landmark precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana , which underscores that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. The Court highlighted that the duty to act fairly is not confined to judicial courts but extends to all administrative bodies and officials exercising authority. The judgment noted, “It is important to note that this rule is not confined to cases where judicial power stricto sensu is exercised. It is appropriately extended to all cases where an independent mind has to be applied to arrive at a fair and just decision between the rival claims of parties.”

Furthermore, the Court referenced the decision in Canara Bank and Others v. Debasis Das , reiterating that natural justice is “another name for common-sense justice” and that administrative actions involving civil consequences must be consistent with these basic rules of fair play. The Court stated that the principles of natural justice are intended to protect individuals against arbitrary procedures that might be adopted by administrative authorities, ensuring that the process remains free from the influence of those with a personal or professional stake in the outcome.

The state government had initially defended the inquiry by informing the Court that it had decided to exclude the concerned officer from the process moving forward and that the inquiry would be handled by other state-level officials. However, the High Court found that the initial defect—the order to conduct the inquiry having been issued by an interested party—was so significant that the entire preliminary report and subsequent actions were legally unsustainable. By quashing the reports and letters, the Court effectively reset the administrative process, ensuring that the integrity of the investigation would not be questioned on the grounds of bias.

As a result of this judgment, the entire matter has been remitted back to the state government. The state is now tasked with initiating a fresh inquiry, specifically mandated to involve officers who were not involved in the original 2013 recruitment process under the then-CEO. The Court has granted a four-week timeline for this fresh exercise to be completed from the date of the receipt of the order. This ensures that the allegations regarding the 2013 recruitment are addressed by an independent committee that adheres strictly to the requirements of procedural fairness, thereby protecting the rights of the petitioners and maintaining the transparency of public sector recruitment.

The decision serves as a significant reminder to administrative authorities in Rajasthan and beyond that the separation of roles in investigative and supervisory duties is paramount. By prioritizing the nemo judex principle, the High Court has affirmed that even in the absence of evidence of specific malice, the mere appearance of bias—stemming from an officer reviewing their own past administrative decisions—is sufficient to invalidate state action and require a renewed, unbiased approach. The state must now proceed with the inquiry in accordance with these directives, ensuring that the new committee acts independently to resolve the outstanding allegations concerning the decade-old selection process.