Supreme Court of India judgment concerning the validity of 1998 teacher appointments challenged due to alleged nepotism and bias. The core conflict revolves around two principles of natural justice: the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem). The document outlines the procedural history, including previous rulings by the Collector, Commissioner, and High Court, leading to a split verdict by two Supreme Court judges. Ultimately, the larger bench upholds the right to a fair hearing, finding the initial decision to cancel appointments without notice to be fundamentally flawed and determining that this procedural defect could not be cured by subsequent appellate review, especially given the lengthy tenure of the appellants.
(A) Constitution of India, Article 14 – Panchayat Raj Act Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, Section 49(c), 100, sub-section (2) of Section 53, sub-section (1) of Section 70 read with subsection (1) of Section 95 – Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997, Rule 2(h), 5, 40 -Appeal and Revision Rules,1995, Rule 5 – Service Law – Selection – Post of school teachers (Shiksha Karmi Grade III) in Janpad Panchayat – Judicial review – Principle of nemo judex causa sua – Whether the selection is vitiated for violation of the first limb of natural justice i.e. rule against bias? – In a scenario such as this where the members did not participate in the interview, a reasonable likelihood of bias cannot reasonably be inferred – While it is true that actual bias need not be proved, this appears to be a case of allegation of bias without any foundational footing – Absence of opportunity of hearing at the initial stage, has prevented the selectee to show that no relative had influenced their selection – It also disables this Court to examine the issue holistically to conclusively determine bias – Held that this clearly appears to be a case of mere suspicion of bias particularly on account of the fact that the Janpad Panchayat unanimously passed a resolution for recusal of the concerned member. It must also be borne in mind that rule against bias is itself considered as a ground for recusal. The selectees were not arrayed and they couldn’t contest the selection before the Collector, in the absence of a complete picture on the process, it is all the more difficult to deduce that there was a reasonable likelihood of bias. In light of the aforesaid reasons, our conclusion in this matter is that the selection is not vitiated on account of violation of the nemo judex rule.
(Para 29 and 35)
(B) Constitution of India, Article 14 – Panchayat Raj Act Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, Section 49(c), 100, sub-section (2) of Section 53, sub-section (1) of Section 70 read with subsection (1) of Section 95 – Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997, Rule 2(h), 5, 40 -Appeal and Revision Rules,1995, Rule 5 – Service Law – Recruitment – Selection – Post of school teachers (Shiksha Karmi Grade III) in Janpad Panchayat – Judicial review – Principle of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem – Whether it is a case of violation of the principle of audi alteram partem? Is demonstration of prejudice necessary to succeed with a claim of violation of the principle of audi alteram partem? – The principle of audi alteram partem lies at the very heart of procedural fairness, ensuring that no one is condemned or adversely affected, without being given an opportunity to present their case – Collector records in his order that even though the selected ‘relatives’ have not been made parties, ‘it is proved that the appointment of these relatives could not be deemed to be made according to the scheme’ and hence it is not necessary to provide an opportunity of hearing – This was reiterated by the Commissioner in his Revisional order – The Division Bench in its order also notes that it was imperative to implead the affected parties – In the absence of notice, the breach strikes at the fundamental core of procedural fairness, rendering the decision invalid unless exceptional circumstances justify such deviation. The vitiation of selection was not only a breach of the principles of natural justice but also contrary to the express statutory provision that required for an opportunity to show cause and an opportunity to provide self-defence. The prejudice theory must be understood as an exception to the general rule and cannot therefore be the norm. In view of the foregoing, a gross violation of the principle of audi alteram partem is noticed in the present case.
(Para 49 and 54)
(C) Panchayat Raj Act Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, Section 49(c), 100, sub-section (2) of Section 53, sub-section (1) of Section 70 read with subsection (1) of Section 95 – Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997, Rule 2(h), 5, 40 -Appeal and Revision Rules,1995, Rule 5 – Service Law – Selection – Post of school teachers (Shiksha Karmi Grade III) in Janpad Panchayat – Judicial review – Principle of natural justice – Whether the breach of the principle of audi alteram partem at the original stage can be cured, at the Revisional stage? – Held that an ineffective hearing at the initial stage therefore taints the entire decision-making process leading to a cascade of flawed orders at subsequent stages – Providing a hearing to the affected individual, minimizes the risk of administrative authorities making decisions in ignorance of facts or other relevant circumstances, as it allows all pertinent issues to be brought to light – This process not only aids the administration in arriving at a correct decisions but also enables courts to more effectively review such actions – The primary purpose of natural justice is to assist the administration in reaching sound decisions at the outset, reducing the likelihood of decisions being overturned later – Its significance lies in fostering fair and well-informed decision- making at the very first instance – Held that a defect at the initial stage cannot generally be cured at the appellate stage – Even in cases where a ‘full jurisdiction’ may be available at the appellate stage, the Courts must have the discretion to relegate it to the original stage for an opportunity of hearing – Therefore, the ex-parte decision to set aside the appellants selection stands vitiated.
(Para 66 and 67)
Krishnadatt Awasthy V. State Of M.P.
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 126: (DoJ 29-01-2025)
