# Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 126
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-01-29
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4806 of 2011
- **Bench:** Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, S.V.N. Bhatti
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/krishnadatt-awasthy-v-state-of-m-p-ors-38118
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

Whether the selection is vitiated for violation of the first limb of natural
justice i.e. rule against bias; whether it is a case of violation of the
principle of audi alteram partem and is demonstration of prejudice
necessary to succeed with a claim of violation of the principle of audi
alteram partem; whether the breach of the principle of audi alteram
partem at the original stage can be cured, at the revisional stage.
Headnotes†
Panchayat Raj Act Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 -
Principle of natural justice - Rule against bias (nemo judex
in causa sua) - Challenge was made to the validity of
appointments of the appellants as school teachers (Shiksha
Karmi Grade III) alleging that the selection process was vitiated
by bias as some of the members of selection committee were
close relatives of the appellants - Split verdict by two judge
bench of Supreme Court, wherein one of the Judge held that
selection of appellants was erroneously set aside, in breach
of principle of audi alteram partem whereas, the other upheld
the cancellation of the appointment of appellants and held
that the first limb of natural justice i.e. 'rule against bias' was
proved, as reasonable likelihood of bias was established -
Matter before the larger bench:
Held: Present is a case of allegation of bias/mere suspicion of
bias without any foundation - The Janpad Panchayat unanimously
passed a resolution mandating that members who had close
relatives among the candidates would recuse themselves from the
interview process - As a matter of fact, the concerned members
had recused and did not participate in the interview and did not
award any marks, thus, a reasonable likelihood of bias cannot
reasonably be inferred - Selection is not vitiated on account of
* Author
1174
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
violation of the nemo judex rule - Madhya Pradesh Panchayat
(Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. [Paras 29, 30, 35, 37]
Principle of natural justice - Audi alteram partem - Violation of -
Appointment of the appellants was set aside by the Collector,
without issuing any notice, holding that the recruitment was
vitiated by bias as some of the members of selection committee
were close relatives of the appellants - Whether it is a case
of violation of the principle of audi alteram partem and is
demonstration of prejudice necessary to succeed with a claim
of violation of the principle of audi alteram partem:
Held: In the present case, there has been a gross violation of
the principle of audi alteram partem - In the absence of notice,
the breach strikes at the fundamental core of procedural fairness,
rendering the decision invalid - The selectees were not arrayed
and they could not contest the selection before the Collector - The
absence of opportunity of hearing at the initial stage prevented the
selectees to show that no relative had influenced their selection -
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 be the norm - Panchayat
Raj Act Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. [Paras 29, 35, 54]
Principle of natural justice - Denial of, at the initial stage
if, can be cured by an appellate body - Appointment of the
appellants was set aside by the Collector without issuing any
notice - Revision petition filed by the appellants, dismissed -
Challenged before High Court, writ petition also rejected - Writ
appeal thereagainst was also dismissed - Eventually, split
verdict delivered by the bench of two judges of Supreme
Court - Matter before the larger bench:
Held: 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 a

## Text

_Characters 0–39,752 of 81,904. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39752 for what follows._

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1173 : 2025 INSC 126
Krishnadatt Awasthy
v.
State of M.P. & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 4806 of 2011)
29 January 2025
[Hrishikesh Roy,* Sudhanshu Dhulia and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the selection is vitiated for violation of the first limb of natural
justice i.e. rule against bias; whether it is a case of violation of the
principle of audi alteram partem and is demonstration of prejudice
necessary to succeed with a claim of violation of the principle of audi
alteram partem; whether the breach of the principle of audi alteram
partem at the original stage can be cured, at the revisional stage.
Headnotes†
Panchayat Raj Act Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 -
Principle of natural justice - Rule against bias (nemo judex
in causa sua) - Challenge was made to the validity of
appointments of the appellants as school teachers (Shiksha
Karmi Grade III) alleging that the selection process was vitiated
by bias as some of the members of selection committee were
close relatives of the appellants - Split verdict by two judge
bench of Supreme Court, wherein one of the Judge held that
selection of appellants was erroneously set aside, in breach
of principle of audi alteram partem whereas, the other upheld
the cancellation of the appointment of appellants and held
that the first limb of natural justice i.e. 'rule against bias' was
proved, as reasonable likelihood of bias was established -
Matter before the larger bench:
Held: Present is a case of allegation of bias/mere suspicion of
bias without any foundation - The Janpad Panchayat unanimously
passed a resolution mandating that members who had close
relatives among the candidates would recuse themselves from the
interview process - As a matter of fact, the concerned members
had recused and did not participate in the interview and did not
award any marks, thus, a reasonable likelihood of bias cannot
reasonably be inferred - Selection is not vitiated on account of
* Author
1174
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
violation of the nemo judex rule - Madhya Pradesh Panchayat
(Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. [Paras 29, 30, 35, 37]
Principle of natural justice - Audi alteram partem - Violation of -
Appointment of the appellants was set aside by the Collector,
without issuing any notice, holding that the recruitment was
vitiated by bias as some of the members of selection committee
were close relatives of the appellants - Whether it is a case
of violation of the principle of audi alteram partem and is
demonstration of prejudice necessary to succeed with a claim
of violation of the principle of audi alteram partem:
Held: In the present case, there has been a gross violation of
the principle of audi alteram partem - In the absence of notice,
the breach strikes at the fundamental core of procedural fairness,
rendering the decision invalid - The selectees were not arrayed
and they could not contest the selection before the Collector - The
absence of opportunity of hearing at the initial stage prevented the
selectees to show that no relative had influenced their selection -
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 be the norm - Panchayat
Raj Act Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. [Paras 29, 35, 54]
Principle of natural justice - Denial of, at the initial stage
if, can be cured by an appellate body - Appointment of the
appellants was set aside by the Collector without issuing any
notice - Revision petition filed by the appellants, dismissed -
Challenged before High Court, writ petition also rejected - Writ
appeal thereagainst was also dismissed - Eventually, split
verdict delivered by the bench of two judges of Supreme
Court - Matter before the larger bench:
Held: 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, in the present case, the ex-parte decision to
set aside the selection of the appellants was vitiated - However,
since the selection pertains to the year 1998, and the appellants
have continuously held office and performed their duties for over
twenty-five years under interim orders, remanding the matter
for a fresh inquiry not practical and will be an injustice to the
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
1175
Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. & Ors.
appointees - Panchayat Raj Act Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam,
1993. [Paras 67, 71]
Principle of natural justice - Denial of, at the initial stage
taints the decision-making process leading to flawed orders
at subsequent stages - Appointment of the appellants was set
aside by the Collector without issuing any notice - Revision
petition filed by the appellants, dismissed - Challenged
before High Court, writ petition also rejected - Writ appeal
thereagainst was also dismissed - Eventually, split verdict
delivered by the bench of two judges of Supreme Court -
Matter before the larger bench:
Held: The orders of the Collector and Commissioner in Revision
are practically identical - An ineffective hearing at the initial stage
tainted the entire decision-making process leading to 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
allowing all pertinent issues to be brought to light - This process not
only aids the administration in arriving at correct decisions but also
enables courts to more effectively review such actions - Panchayat
Raj Act Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 - Madhya Pradesh
Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 - r.5(b). [Para 66]
Principle of natural justice - Right to a fair hearing (audi
alteram partem) - Object of - For an allegation of bias to be
proved, fair hearing is imperative. [Paras 68, 69]
Doctrine of necessity - Applicability - Assumption of
impartiality to be contextual for the application of the doctrine
of necessity - Discussed. [Para 30]
Judicial review of administrative actions, discussed -
Selections made by expert bodies - Scope of interference
with, under writ jurisdiction. [Paras 14, 15]
Case Law Cited
State Bank of Patiala v. SK Sharma [1996] 3 SCR 972 : (1996)
3 SCC 364; AK Kraipak v. Union of India [1970] 1 SCR 457 :
(1969) 2 SCC 262; Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr
[1978] 2 SCR 272 : (1978) 1 SCC 405; Swadeshi Cotton Mills v.
Union of India [1981] 2 SCR 533 : (1981) 1 SCC 664; Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] 2 SCR 621 : (1978) 1 SCC 248;
SL Kapoor v. Jagmohan [1981] 1 SCR 746 : (1980) 4 SCC 379;
1176
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Dy. Comm. of Central Excise, Gauhati
and Ors. [2015] 6 SCR 437 : (2015) 8 SCC 519; State of UP v.
Sudhir Kumar Singh [2020] 13 SCR 571 : (2021) 19 SCC 706;
Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India [2023] 10 SCR
595 : (2023) 13 SCC 401; Institute of Chartered Accountants v. L.
K. Ratna [1986] 3 SCR 1049 : (1986) 4 SCC 537; State of U.P. v.
Mohammed Nooh 1958 SCR 595; Mysore State Road Transport
Corporation v. Mirja Khasim [1977] 2 SCR 282 : (1977) 2 SCC
457; Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India [1989] Supp. 2 SCR 597 :
(1990) 1 SCC 613; J. Mohapatra & Co. v. State of Orissa [1985]
1 SCR 322 : (1984) 4 SCC 103; Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State
of Haryana [1985] Supp. 1 SCR 657 : (1985) 4 SCC 417; Kirti
Deshmankar v. Union of India [1990] Supp. 1 SCR 355 : (1991)
1 SCC 104; Gurdip Singh v. State of Punjab (1997) 10 SCC 641;
Utkal University v. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi [1999] 1 SCR 19 :
(1999) 2 SCC 193; Govt. of T.N. v. Munuswamy Mudaliar [1988]
Supp. 2 SCR 673 : (1988) Supp. SCC 651 : AIR 1988 SC 2232;
Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation v. Encon Builders
(I) (P) Ltd. [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 812 : (2003) 7 SCC 418; State of
A.P. v. McDowell & Company [1996] 3 SCR 721 : (1996) 3 SCC
709; Tata Cellular v. Union of India [1994] Supp. 2 SCR 122 :
(1994) 6 SCC 651; Mohd. Mustafa v. Union of India [2021] 11
SCR 163 : (2022) 1 SCC 294; Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S.
Mahajan (1990) 1 SCC 305; Badrinath v. State of T.N. [2000] Supp.
3 SCR 573 : (2000) 8 SCC 395; National Institute of Mental Health
& Neuro Sciences v. K. Kalyana Raman (1992) Supp. 2 SCC
481; I.P.S. Dewan v. Union of India [1995] 2 SCR 532 : (1995) 3
SCC 383; UPSC v. Hiranyalal Dev [1988] 3 SCR 302 : (1988) 2
SCC 242; M.V. Thimmaiah v. UPSC [2007] 13 SCR 624 : (2008)
2 SCC 119; UPSC v. M. Sathiya Priya [2018] 6 SCR 701 : (2018)
15 SCC 796; Om Kumar v. Union of India [2000] Supp. 4 SCR
693 : (2001) 2 SCC 386 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1039; Union of India v.
G. Ganayutham [1997] Supp. 3 SCR 549 : (1997) 7 SCC 463 :
1997 SCC (L&S) 1806; S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India [1990]
Supp. 1 SCR 44 : (1990) 4 SCC 594; Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co.
of India Ltd. v. Union of India [1976] Supp. 1 SCR 489 : (1976)
2 SCC 981; CCI v. SAIL [2010] 11 SCR 112 : (2010) 10 SCC
744; Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan [2010]
10 SCR 1070 : (2010) 9 SCC 496; Railway Electrification v. ECI
SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Co., 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3219; Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi [1957] 1 SCR 575 :
1957 SCC OnLine SC 10; Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India [1988]
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
1177
Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. & Ors.
1 SCR 512 : (1987) 4 SCC 611; Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing
Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-Education) Higher Secondary School
[1993] 3 SCR 863 : (1993) 4 SCC 10; S Parthasarathi v. State
of AP [1974] 1 SCR 697 : (1974) 3 SCC 459; SK Golap and
Others v. Bhuban Chandra Panda, 1990 SCC OnLine Cal 264;
GN Nayak v Goa University [2002] 1 SCR 636 : (2002) 2 SCC
712; Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel [1985] Supp. 2 SCR 131 :
(1985) 3 SCC 398; Charanjit Singh v. Harinder Sharma (2002) 9
SCC 732; Javid Rasool Bhat v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1984) 2
SCC 682; Jaswant Singh Nerwal v. State of Punjab [1991] 1 SCR
411 : (1991) Supp. 1 SCC 313; State Govt. Houseless Harijan
Employees Association v. State of Karnataka [2000] Supp. 5
SCR 483 : (2001) 1 SCC 610; East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v.
Collector of Customs [1963] 3 SCR 338 : AIR 1962 SC 1893;
Uma Nath Pandey and Ors. v. State of UP [2009] 4 SCR 374 :
(2009) 12 SCC 40; Fareed Ahmed v. Ahmedabad Municipality
[1977] 1 SCR 71 : AIR 1976 SC 2095; Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v.
Government of Delhi [1975] 1 SCR 597 : (1975) 4 SCC 298;
Mysore SRT Corp v. Mirza Khasim [1977] 2 SCR 282 : AIR 1977
SC 747; Jayantilal Ratanchand Shah v. Reserve Bank of India
[1996] Supp. 4 SCR 443 : (1996) 9 SCC 650; United Planters'
Association of Southern India v. KG Sangameswaran [1997] 2
SCR 756 : (1997) 4 SCC 741; Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal
Corporation [1985] Supp. 2 SCR 51 : (1985) 3 SCC 545; Aligarh
Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan [2000] Supp. 2 SCR 684 :
(2000) 7 SCC 529 - referred to.
Hira Lal Patel v. Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat,
Sarangarh (1998) 2 MP WN 39; Laxmidhar v. State of Orissa,
AIR 1974 Ori 127; Kashiram Dalmia v. State, AIR 1978 Pat 265;
G Rajalakshmi v. Appellate Authority, AIR 1980 AP 100; Serajuddin
Co. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1974 Cal 296 - referred to.
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service, 1985
AC 374; Dimes v. The Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal
(1852) 3 HLC 759; R v. Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy [1924]
1 KB 256; Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC) v. Lannon (1969) 1
QB 577; Porter v. Magill (2002) 1 All ER 465; Ridge v. Baldwin
[1964] AC 40; Annamunthodo v. Oilfield Workers' Trade Union
[1961] AC 945 (PC); Leary v. National Union of Vehicle Builders
(1970) 2 All ER 713; Calvin v. Carr (1979) 2 WLR 755; Lloyd v.
McMahon (1987) 1 AC 625; R v. Gough, 1993 AC 646; Australian
Workers' Union v. Bowen (No. 2) (1948) 77 C.L.R. 601 - referred to.
1178
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Books and Periodicals Cited
H. W. R. Wade, Administrative Law (5th Edition); H W R Wade
and C F Forsyth, Administrative Law (Oxford University Press,
11th ed, 2014); I.P. Massey, Administrative Law (8th Edition, 2012);
Lawrence H. Tribe, 'American Constitutional Law' (The Foundation
Press 1978) - referred to.
List of Acts
Panchayat Raj Act Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993; Madhya
Pradesh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995.
List of Keywords
Audi alteram partem; Rule against bias; Allegation of bias/mere
suspicion of bias; Principles of natural justice; Nemo judex in causa
sua; Selection; Appointment; School teachers; Shiksha karmi(s);
Selection committee; Relatives of the candidates; Family members;
Selection not vitiated; Interference with selections; Procedural
impropriety; Rule of fair hearing; Recuse; Recusal; Resolution for
recusal; Doctrine of necessity; Judicial review of administrative
actions; Collector; Ineffective hearing; Notice not issued; Without
issuing notice to the selectees; Absence of opportunity of hearing;
Violation of right of hearing; Prejudice; Full jurisdiction.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4806 of 2011
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2008 of the High Court
of M.P at Jabalpur in WA No. 892 of 2008
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 4807, 4808 and 4809 of 2011
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Vivek Tankha, Sr. Adv., Neeraj Shekhar, Mrs. Kshama Sharma,
Ramendra Vikram Singh, Divyam Sikka, Amrendra Singh, Ram
Bachan Choudhary, Rajesh Maurya Singh, Rajesh Maurya.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Saurabh Singh, Shiv Vinayak Gupta,
Ms. Shruti Verma, Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Sanjay Kumar Visen,
Parth Sarathi, Gyanendra Vikram Singh, Ms. Soumya Gulati.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
1179
Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. & Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
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 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).
I.
RELEVANT FACTS
4.
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
31.8.1998 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 16.9.1998 and
the appointment order was issued on 17.9.1998. 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 Section 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
1180
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 Section 40(c) and Section 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, Sarangarh1, 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 section 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 14.3.2000. In the said order the
Commissioner observed in para (6) that the selection is contrary
to Section 40(C) of the Adhiniyam, 1993. The Revisional Authority
brushed aside the plea of non-joinder and of not affording opportunity
of hearing, by relying on the admission of the relationship of the
appellants with the members of the selection committee, as noted
in the reply filed by the Chief Executive Officer. Aggrieved by the
order of the Commissioner, the appointees filed a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madhya Pradesh
High Court which was however dismissed by the learned single judge
1
(1998) 2 MP WN 39
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
1181
Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. & Ors.
vide order dated 31.7.2008. Relying on State Bank of Patiala v SK
Sharma2, it was observed that the opportunity of hearing has to be
tested on the touchstone of actual prejudice being caused to the
writ petitioners. It was also noted that full opportunity of hearing was
granted at the Revisional stage by the Commissioner. According to
the learned Judge the Chief Executive officer's reply established that
few selectees were relatives of Smt. Pushpa Dwivedi(Chairperson
of the selection Committee) and similarly, close relatives of Shri
Swami Singh(member of the Education Committee) such as his
sister-in-law, son, daughter-in-law and nephew were also among the
selected candidates. The Single Judge relied on the five-judge bench
decision of this Court in AK Kraipak v Union of India3(for short "AK
Kraipak") where it was emphasized that the presence of interested
parties in the selection committee creates a reasonable likelihood of
bias, even if direct participation is limited. It was therefore concluded
that even though Smt. Pushpa Dwivedi(Chairperson) and Swami
Singh(member) recused themselves during interviews of their alleged
relatives, their presence on the committee could have influenced the
overall selection process.
7.
The appellants then preferred a writ appeal which was dismissed by
the Division bench of the High Court on 15.12.2008. The Division
Bench noted inter alia that:
'though it was imperative on the part of appellants to
implead the affected parties, yet as the affected parties
had been given full opportunity from all aspects by the
revisional forum as well as by the Learned Single Judge,
we do not think it apt and apposite to quash the order and
remand the matter to the Collector'.
8.
Relying on decisions of this Court on bias4, the Division Bench
observed that bias is a state of mind at work and when the degree
of relationship is in quite proximity, bias has to be inferred.
2
(1996) 3 SCC 364
3
(1969) 2 SCC 262
4
A.K. Kraipak v Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262; J. Mohapatra & Co. v. State of Orissa, (1984) 4 SCC
103, Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417, Kirti Deshmankar v. Union of India,
(1991) 1 SCC 104, Gurdip Singh v. State of Punjab, (1997) 10 SCC 641, Utkal University v. Nrusingha
Charan Sarangi, (1999) 2 SCC 193, G.N. Nayak v. Goa University, (2002) 2 SCC 712, Govt. of T.N. v.
Munuswamy Mudaliar, (1988) Supp. SCC 651 : AIR 1988 SC 2232, Bihar State Mineral Development
Corporation v. Encon Builders (I) (P) Ltd., (2003) 7 SCC 418.
1182
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
9.
Thereafter when the matter reached the Supreme Court, Justice
KV Vishwanathan concluded that the selection of appellants was
erroneously set aside, in breach of the principle of audi alteram partem.
It was further held that the principle must be adhered to at the original
stage. Furthermore, Rule 9 of the Appeal and Revision Rules, 1995
was not complied with. It was also observed that the orders of the
Collector & Commissioner made no reference either to definition
of 'relative' in explanation to Section 40(c) of Adhiniyam nor to the
resolution providing for recusal. Non-impleadment of parties amounted
to 'no opportunity at all' for hearing was the conclusion reached by
Justice KV Vishwanathan.
10. On the other hand, Justice J.K. Maheshwari upheld the decision to
cancel the appointment of the appellants and opined that the first
limb of natural justice i.e. 'rule against bias' was irrefutably proved,
as reasonable likelihood of bias was established. The plea of nonimpleadment was considered to be a useless formality. It was further
held that unless prejudice is demonstrated, mere non-joinder at the
initial stage does not violate the principles of natural justice.
II.
SUBMISSIONS
11. The foundational contention of the appellants is that since their
appointments were cancelled without affording them any hearing
and without arraying them as a party in the challenge by the
respondent no. 4(Archana Mishra), the adverse decision taken
against the appellants, is legally unsustainable. Mr. Vivek Tankha,
the learned Senior Counsel would argue that an incorrect narrative
was the basis for the allegation made by the respondent No. 4,
about unfair selection. It is specifically pointed out that none of the
relatives of the candidates had participated during the selection
of the appellants. More importantly, the related persons had not
awarded any marks to influence the selection. Specifically adverting
to the marks obtained by the challenger and the selectees, the
appellants argue that it was a fair selection and that intervention
was unmerited.
12. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent, Mrinal Gopal
Elker, and Avdhesh Kumar Singh, would rely on Section 40(c) of the
Adhiniyam,1993 to project that the said section provides that 'any
of the office bearers shall not cause financial gain to his relatives'.
According to them, the presence of close relatives in the selection
process vitiated the process of selection of Shiksha Karmis. They
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
1183
Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. & Ors.
projected that non-adherence to the principles of audi alteram partem,
if any, was cured by the proceedings before the commissioner wherein
appellants were given full opportunity. On that basis, it was submitted
that the non- granting of opportunity of hearing by the Collector at
the original stage was inconsequential. According to the respondent,
the reasonable likelihood of bias in selection is established by the
close relationship between the Committee members and the selected
candidates who have been awarded high marks in comparison to
other candidates in the interview process.
III.
ISSUES
13. Going by the above submissions, the following broad issues fall for
our consideration:
A.
Whether the selection is vitiated for violation of the first limb of
natural justice i.e. rule against bias?
B.
Where 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?
C.
Whether the breach of the principle of audi alteram partem at
the original stage can be cured, at the Revisional stage?
IV.
DISCUSSION
14. Judicial review of administrative actions are permissible on the
grounds of illegality, unreasonableness or irrationality and procedural
irregularity5. Lord Diplock6 succinctly described each of the
aforementioned grounds for judicial review as under:
"By "illegality" as a ground for judicial review I mean that
the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that
regulates his decision-making power and must give effect
to it. Whether he has or not is par excellence a justiciable
question to be decided, in the event of dispute, by those
persons, the Judges, by whom the judicial power of the
State is exercisable.
5
State of A.P. v. McDowell & Company, (1996) 3 SCC 709; Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC
651; and Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service, 1985 AC 374 (HL); Mohd. Mustafa v.
Union of India, (2022) 1 SCC 294.
6
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service, 1985 AC 374.
1184
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
By "irrationality" I mean what can by now be succinctly
referred to as "Wednesbury [Associated Provincial Picture
Houses v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223 (CA)]
unreasonableness". It applies to a decision which is so
outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral
standards that no sensible person who had applied his
mind to the question to be decided could have arrived
at it. Whether a decision falls within this category is a
question that Judges by their training and experience
should be well equipped to answer, or else there would
be something badly wrong with our judicial system. To
justify the court's exercise of this role, resort I think is
today no longer needed to Viscount Radcliffe's ingenious
explanation in Edwards v. Bairstow [Edwards v. Bairstow,
1956 AC 14 : (1955) 3 WLR 410 (HL)] , of irrationality as
a ground for a court's reversal of a decision by ascribing
it to an inferred though unidentifiable mistake of law by
the decision-maker. "Irrationality" by now can stand on its
own feet as an accepted ground on which a decision may
be attacked by judicial review.
I have described the third head as "procedural impropriety"
rather than failure to observe basic rules of natural
justice or failure to act with procedural fairness towards
the person who will be affected by the decision. This
is because susceptibility to judicial review under this
head covers also failure by an Administrative Tribunal
to observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down
in the legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction is
conferred, even where such failure does not involve
any denial of natural justice. But the instant case is not
concerned with the proceedings of an Administrative
Tribunal at all."
15. It is equally well-settled that courts under its writ jurisdiction do not
interfere with selections made by expert bodies by reassessing the
comparative merits of the candidates. Interference with selections
is limited to decisions vitiated by bias, malafides and violation of
statutory provisions7. Additionally, this Court has also held that
7
Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan (1990) 1 SCC 305; Badrinath v. State of T.N. (2000) 8 SCC
395; National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. K. Kalyana Raman (1992) Supp. 2 SCC
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
1185
Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. & Ors.
administrative action can be reviewed on the ground of proportionality
if it affects fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 and 21
of the Constitution of India8.
16. In this case, our primary focus is on procedural impropriety and in
particular, the breach of the principles of natural justice. The process
for arriving at a decision is equally significant as the decision itself. If
the procedure is not 'fair', the decision cannot be possibly endorsed.
The principles of natural justice as derived from common law which
guarantee 'fair play in action'9, has two facets which include rule
against bias and the rule of fair hearing. Additionally, a reasoned
order has also been regarded as a third facet of the principles of
natural justice10 and holds utmost significance in ensuring fairness
of the process.
ISSUE A
17. The first issue that falls for our consideration is whether the selection
stands vitiated on the ground of violation of the rule against bias. It
must be borne in mind that when a statute specifies the procedure
for administrative decision making, the principles of natural justice
supplement but do not substitute the statutory procedure11. However,
even if the statute does not provide for the administrative procedure,
the authorities are bound to make decisions in adherence to the
principles of natural justice.
18. Let us now consider the relevant statutory provisions in the present
case which operate alongside the common law principles. The Madhya
Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1997 is framed in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (2) of Section 53, sub-section (1) of Section 70 read
with subsection (1) of Section 95 of Adhiniyam, 1993 is apposite.
Rule 2(h) defines 'Shiksha Karmi' as under:
481; I.P.S. Dewan v. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 383; UPSC v. Hiranyalal Dev (1988) 2 SCC 242; M.V.
Thimmaiah v. UPSC (2008) 2 SCC 119 and UPSC v. M. Sathiya Priya (2018) 15 SCC 796
8
Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1039; Union of India v. G. Ganayutham
(1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806
9
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
10
S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594; Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of
India (1976) 2 SCC 981; CCI v. SAIL (2010) 10 SCC 744; Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed
Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496
11
AK Kraipak v Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262
1186
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
"Shiksha Karmi" means the person appointed by Zila
Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat, as the case may be, for
teaching in the schools under their control."
19. Rule 5 deals with 'Methods of Selection and Recruitment'. Sub-rule 8
provides that the Selection Committee shall be constituted consisting
of members as specified in Schedule II by the Zila Panchayat or the
Janpad Panchayat, as the case ,may be. The relevant sub-Rule 9
reads as under:
(i) the Committee will assess the candidates called for
interview and award marks in the following manner:
"a) 60% marks for marks obtained in the qualifying
examination specified in Schedule II;
b) 25% marks for the teaching experience in the schools of
concerning Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat. Similar
benefits will be given for teaching experience of equivalent
rural school. The decision of the Committee on the validity
and valuation of the certificate of teaching experience of
rural schools will be final;
c) 15% marks for oral test which may include the test fori) communication skills in local dialect
ii) knowledge of local environment
iii) general knowledge
iv) training and teaching aptitude and
v) any other test which the Selection Committee may
deem fit.
d) Other things remaining the same, preference, preference
will be given to candidates who possess certificate in B.
Ed, BTI or D. Ed.
e) All other things remaining the same, in the final selection,
those who have teaching experience of schools of Janpad
Panchayat or Zila Panchayat will be given preference.
(ii) Select list of each category shall be prepared on the
basis of above assessment in order of merit and shall
include 10% names in waiting list which shall be valid for
six months."
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
1187
Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. & Ors.
20. The statutory Rules clearly specify the designation of those who must
be included in the selection committee, as outlined in Schedule II of
the Rules,1997. They are following:
"1. Chairperson, Standing Committee of Education of
Janpad Panchayat;
2. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat;
3. Block Education Officer (Member Secretary);
4. Two specialists in the subject to be nominated by the
Standing Committee for Education of whom one shall be
woman; and
5. All members from the Standing Committee of whom
atleast one belongs to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
or OBC, in case there is no SC/ST/OBC member in the
Standing Committee then the same shall be nominated
from the General Body."
21. Therefore, 'all members from the Standing Committee' were required
to be a part of the selection committee. It is also important to note
that the following resolution was passed by the Standing Committee
on recusal:
"(C) Letter No. 423/S.T.98 dated 26.07.1998 of the
Collector, Chhatarpur was read over by Chief Executive
Officer, in which it has been mentioned that at the time of
recruitment of teachers those members and officers also
take part in the interview whose close relatives are the
candidates due to which the entire selection process is
likely to be affected. Therefore, the directions are given
toimmediately examine whether any candidate is the close
relative of the member of the Committee in the interview.
If any near relative of the member or the officer is the
candidate, then such member or officer should not be
present on the date of interview and any impartial person
should be kept in his place. The Committee unanimously
decided that if any close relative of any member, officer or
subject expert appears for interview then the marks to be
given by that member, officer or subject specialist should
be given by Chief Executive Officer and that member,
officer or subject expert shall not be present at the venue
of interview. This resolution has been passed unanimously."
1188
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
22. Rule 40 deals with the removal of office bearers of Panchayat and
provides as under:
"40. Removal of office-bearers of Panchayat- (1) The State
Government or the prescribed authority may after such
enquiry as it may deem fit to make at any time, remove
an office bearer-
(a) if he has been guilty of misconduct in the discharge
of his duties; or
(b) if his continuance in office is undesirable in the interest
of the public: Provided that no person shall be removed
unless he has been given an opportunity to show cause
why he should not be removed from his office.
Explanation-For the purpose of this sub-section "Misconduct"
shall include-
(a) any action adversely affecting,-
(i) the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India; or
(ii) the harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood
amongst all the people of State transcending religious,
linguistic, regional, caste or sectional diversities; or
(iii) the dignity of women; or
(b) gross negligence in the discharge of the duties under
this Act;
[(c) the use of position or influence directly or indirectly
to secure employment for any relative in the Panchayat
or any action for extending any pecuniary benefits to any
relative, such as giving out any type of lease, getting any
work done through them in the Panchayat by an officebearer of Panchayat.
Explanation. - For the purpose of this clause, the expression
"relative" shall mean father, mother, brother, sister, husband,
wife, son, daughter, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother -inlaw, sister-in-law, son-in-law or daughter-in-law : ]"
23. The explanation to clause(c) provides for the definition of the
expression 'relative' to mean 'father, mother, brother, sister, husband,
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
1189
Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. & Ors.
wife, son, daughter, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law, sisterin-law, son-in-law or daughter-in-law'. Rule 100 of the Adhiniyam
which has some relevance reads thus:
"100. Penalty for acquisition by a member, office bearer
or servant of interest in contract. - If a member or office
bearer or servant of Panchayat knowingly acquires, directly
or indirectly any personal share or interest in any contract
or employment, with, by or on behalf of a Panchayat without
the sanction of or permission of the prescribed authority
he shall be deemed to have committed an offense under
Section 168 of the Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)."
24. Having noted the relevant statutory provisions, a brief survey of the
jurisprudence on the appropriate test for bias and the applicable
standard of proof would now be in order before the statutory law and
the common law principles are applied to the facts of the present case.
25. The principle of nemo judex causa sua found its origin in English law.
In Dimes v. Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal12, the House of
Lords in a case concerning pecuniary interest observed that the rule
against bias extends not only to actual bias but also to the appearance
of bias. This principle was later extended to other forms of interest in R
v. Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy13 where it was held that 'even a
suspicion that there has been improper interference with the course of
justice', would lead to the vitiation of proceedings. Lord Hewart noted
that it is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be
done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Lord
Denning in Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC) v Lannon14 noted that,
'if right minded persons would think that, in the circumstances, there
was a 'real likelihood of bias' on his part, he should not sit. And if he
does sit, his decision does not stand'. It was further held that 'there
must be circumstances from which a reasonable man would think it
likely or probable that the justice, or chairman as the case may be,
would, or did, favour one side at the expense of the other.'
26. The emphasis on 'likely or probable' as noted by Lord Denning,
was considered in R v Gough15 (for short "Gough") where the Court
12
Dimes v. The Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 HLC 759
13
[1924] 1 KB 256
14
(1969) 1 QB 577
15
R v. Gough, 1993 AC 646
1190
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
shifted the focus to the possibility of bias rather than its probability.
The test articulated in Gough(supra), was whether there was a 'real
danger of bias' rather than a 'real likelihood' of bias. It prioritised
the court's assessment of bias over the perception of a fair-minded
and informed observer emphasising that the court 'personifies the
reasonable man'. This test was criticised in other common law
jurisdictions for veering away from the public perception of bias.
The House of Lords modified the said test in Porter v Magill16 and
pronounced as under:
"The Court must first ascertain all the circumstances which
have a bearing on the suggestion that the judge was biased,
it must then ask whether those circumstances would lead
to a fair minded and informed observer to conclude that
there was a real possibility that the Tribunal was biased."
27. Indian Courts have consistently adopted the 'real likelihood' test
to determine bias17. In a recent decision in Central Organisation
for Railway Electrification v.