# Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 264
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-04-04
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4806 of 2011
- **Bench:** J.K. Maheshwari, K.V. Viswanathan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/krishnadatt-awasthy-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-37562
- **Pages:** 83

## Headnote

Matter pertains to the selection and appointment of appellants and
four others to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade wherein the selection
process, if vitiated by bias, candidates being close relatives of the
members of selection committee and non-joinder of parties in the
initial appeal, if violative of the natural justice.
Headnotes
Service law - Selection and appointment - Selection process,
if vitiated by bias, the candidates being close relatives of
the members of selection committee - Non-joinder of parties
in the initial appeal, if violative of the natural justice - Post
of Shiksha Karmi Grade - Selection and appointment of
249 candidates including ten appellants and four other
candidates, who were close relatives of the members of
selection committee - Challenged to, before the Collector,
by one of the aspirant - Only officers ex-officio impleaded
as parties and not the appellants and the members of the
selection committee - Cancellation of selection of appellants
and four others since the members of the selection committee
being their relatives gave them benefit thus, selection process
vitiated - Said order upheld in Revision - Writ petition
thereagainst, dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court
holding that the appellants were afforded ample opportunity
of hearing thus, not joining them as party at the first instance
before the Collector, should not prejudice them and plea of
violation of principle of natural justice not justified - Division
Bench also dismissed the appeal - Interference with:
Held: (per Maheshwari, J.) 'Rule against bias' proved as
reasonable likelihood of bias was fully established irrefutably -
152
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Without showing prejudice mere non-joinder even at initial stage
does not violate the natural justice doctrine - Action of appellants
of not controverting their relationship with the parties and not
demonstrating the manner in which they have been prejudiced
before the revisional authority and the Single Judge and Division
Bench of High Court, their representation before the Collector
would not have improved their case or compelled the Collector to
arrive at a different finding - Plea of non-impleadment is a useless
formality and the court should not entangle itself in procedural
complexities - In view of the principle of prejudice, the judgment
passed by the Single Judge as confirmed in writ appeal reaffirming
the judgment of the Collector and Commissioner, setting aside
the selection of the appellants does not suffer from any infirmity,
warranting interference of this Court - Held: (per Viswanathan,
J.) When an unsuccessful candidate challenged the selection
process, where the specific grievance was against 14 candidates
under the category of relatives and the overall figure was 249, at
least the candidates against whom specific allegations were made
and who were identified ought to have been given notices and
made a party - Courts below makes no reference to resolution
providing for recusal of committee members who had their close
relatives appearing for the interview - Furthermore, the principle
of prejudice not applicable since there was a complete denial
of opportunity - Breach of principles of natural justice in the
proceedings before the Collector at the original stage did not
stand cured on account of the proceedings before the revisional
authority - Given a chance before the Collector perhaps the
appellants would have met each and every objection of the sole
complainant - For the failure of complainant and the Collector,
the appellants cannot be made to pay - By virtue of interim
orders, the appellants are discharging their duties for the past
twenty five years, thus, not in the interest of justice to remand the
matter for a fresh enquiry - Impugned judgment of the Division
Bench set aside - Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Appeal and
Revision) Rules, 1995 - Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam
Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 - Madhya Pradesh Panchayat
Shik

## Text

_Characters 0–39,833 of 184,572. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39833 for what follows._

* Author
Ed. Note: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. V. Viswanathan pronounced
separate Judgments. In view of divergent views, vide a common order, it was inter alia directed that
the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench.
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 151 : 2024 INSC 264
Krishnadatt Awasthy
v.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 4806 of 2011)
04 April 2024
[J.K. Maheshwari* and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the selection and appointment of appellants and
four others to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade wherein the selection
process, if vitiated by bias, candidates being close relatives of the
members of selection committee and non-joinder of parties in the
initial appeal, if violative of the natural justice.
Headnotes
Service law - Selection and appointment - Selection process,
if vitiated by bias, the candidates being close relatives of
the members of selection committee - Non-joinder of parties
in the initial appeal, if violative of the natural justice - Post
of Shiksha Karmi Grade - Selection and appointment of
249 candidates including ten appellants and four other
candidates, who were close relatives of the members of
selection committee - Challenged to, before the Collector,
by one of the aspirant - Only officers ex-officio impleaded
as parties and not the appellants and the members of the
selection committee - Cancellation of selection of appellants
and four others since the members of the selection committee
being their relatives gave them benefit thus, selection process
vitiated - Said order upheld in Revision - Writ petition
thereagainst, dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court
holding that the appellants were afforded ample opportunity
of hearing thus, not joining them as party at the first instance
before the Collector, should not prejudice them and plea of
violation of principle of natural justice not justified - Division
Bench also dismissed the appeal - Interference with:
Held: (per Maheshwari, J.) 'Rule against bias' proved as
reasonable likelihood of bias was fully established irrefutably -
152
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Without showing prejudice mere non-joinder even at initial stage
does not violate the natural justice doctrine - Action of appellants
of not controverting their relationship with the parties and not
demonstrating the manner in which they have been prejudiced
before the revisional authority and the Single Judge and Division
Bench of High Court, their representation before the Collector
would not have improved their case or compelled the Collector to
arrive at a different finding - Plea of non-impleadment is a useless
formality and the court should not entangle itself in procedural
complexities - In view of the principle of prejudice, the judgment
passed by the Single Judge as confirmed in writ appeal reaffirming
the judgment of the Collector and Commissioner, setting aside
the selection of the appellants does not suffer from any infirmity,
warranting interference of this Court - Held: (per Viswanathan,
J.) When an unsuccessful candidate challenged the selection
process, where the specific grievance was against 14 candidates
under the category of relatives and the overall figure was 249, at
least the candidates against whom specific allegations were made
and who were identified ought to have been given notices and
made a party - Courts below makes no reference to resolution
providing for recusal of committee members who had their close
relatives appearing for the interview - Furthermore, the principle
of prejudice not applicable since there was a complete denial
of opportunity - Breach of principles of natural justice in the
proceedings before the Collector at the original stage did not
stand cured on account of the proceedings before the revisional
authority - Given a chance before the Collector perhaps the
appellants would have met each and every objection of the sole
complainant - For the failure of complainant and the Collector,
the appellants cannot be made to pay - By virtue of interim
orders, the appellants are discharging their duties for the past
twenty five years, thus, not in the interest of justice to remand the
matter for a fresh enquiry - Impugned judgment of the Division
Bench set aside - Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Appeal and
Revision) Rules, 1995 - Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam
Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 - Madhya Pradesh Panchayat
Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules,
1997 [Paras 35, 43, 46, 60, 66, 75-77] - Per Court: In view of
the divergent views, issuance of directions to the Registry to
place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for
constitution of a larger Bench.
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
153
Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Case Law Cited
In the Judgment of J.K. Maheshwari, J.
State Bank of Patiala and others v. S.K. Sharma [1996]
3 SCR 972 : (1996) 3 SCC 364; State of Uttar Pradesh
v. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. [2020] 13 SCR 571 :
(2020) SCC Online SC 847 - relied on.
Javid Rasool Bhat & Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
& Ors. [1984] 2 SCR 582 : (1984) 2 SCC 631 - held
inapplicable.
A.K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India and others
[1970] 1 SCR 457 : (1969) 2 SCC 262; J. Mohapatra &
Co. & Anr. v. State of Orissa & Anr. [1985] 1 SCR 322 :
(1984) 4 SCC 103; Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State
of Haryana & Ors. [1985] Supp. 1 SCR 657 : (1985) 4
SCC 417; Kirti Deshmankar v. Union of India & Ors.
[1990] Supp. 1 SCR 355 : (1991) 1 SCC 104; Gurdip
Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 641;
Utkal University v. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi [1999]
1 SCR 19 : (1999) 2 SCC 193; G.N. Nayak v. Goa
University [2002] 1 SCR 636 : (2002) 2 SCC 712; Govt.
Of T.N. v. Munuswamy Mudaliar and Anr. (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; S.
Parthasarathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1974] 1 SCR
697 : (1974) 3 SCC 459; Dr. G. Sarana v. University
of Lucknow and others [1977] 1 SCR 64 : (1976) 3
SCC 585; Sk. Golap and others v. Bhuban Chandra
Panda and others (1990) SCC Online Cal 264; Kumaon
Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant and
others [2000] Supp. 4 SCR 248: (2001) 1 SCC 182;
Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Ors. [2007]
3 SCR 95 : (2007) 4 SCC 54; H.P. Transport Corpn.
v. K.C. Rahi [2008] 3 SCR 97 : (2008) 11 SCC 502;
Jankinath Sarangi v. State of Orissa (1969) 3 SCC 392;
M/s. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. v. Commissioner
Kumaon Division Nainital U.P. & Ors. [2004] 2 SCR
543 : (2004) 4 SCC 281; Canara Bank v. Debasis Das
[2003] 2 SCR 968 : (2003) 4 SCC 557 - referred to.
154
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
R v. Rand (1866) LR 1 QB 230; R v. Sussex JJ ex
parte McCarthy (1924) 1 KB 256; R v. Camborne JJ ex
parte Pearce (1955) 1 QB 41; Metropolitan Properties
Co. (FGC) Ltd. v. Lannon (1969) 1 QB 577; Hannam
v. Bradford Corporation (1970) 2 All ER 690; R v.
Gough (1993) AC 646; Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) AC
40; Russell v. Duke of Norfolk (1949) 1 AII ER 109
(CA) - referred to.
In the Judgment of K.V. Viswanathan, J.
State Bank of Patiala and others v. S.K. Sharma [1996]
3 SCR 972 : (1996) 3 SCC 364 - held inapplicable.
Shri Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad and Another v. The
Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and
Another [1977] 1 SCR 71 : (1976) 3 SCC 719; Institute of
Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna and Others
[1986] 3 SCR 1049 : (1986) 4 SCC 537; United Planters
Association of Southern India v. K.G. Sangameswaran
and Another [1997] 2 SCR 756 : (1997) 4 SCC 741;
Jayantilal Ratanchand Shah v. Reserve Bank of India
and Others [1996] 4 Suppl. SCR 443 : (1996) 9 SCC
650 - relied on.
A.K. Kraipak and Others v. Union of India and Others
[1970] 1 SCR 457 : (1969) 2 SCC 262; Daffodills
Pharmaceuticals Limited and Another v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Another [2019] 15 SCR 125 : (2019) INSC
1366 : (2020) 18 SCC 550; Javid Rasool Bhat and Others
v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others [1984] 2
SCR 582 : (1984) 2 SCC 631; Chairman State Bank of
India and Another v. M.J. James [2021] 7 SCR 373 :
(2022) 2 SCC 301 : 2021 INSC 732; Kirti Deshmankar v.
Union of India & Ors. [1990] Supp. 1 SCR 355 : (1991)
1 SCC 104; J. Mohapatra & Co. & Anr. v. State of Orissa
& Anr. [1985] 1 SCR 322 : (1984) 4 SCC 103; Ashok
Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. [1985]
Supp. 1 SCR 657 : (1985) 4 SCC 417; J.S. Yadav v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2011] 5 SCR 460 :
(2011) 6 SCC 570; Prabodh Verma and Others v. State
of Uttar Pradesh and 34 Others [1985] 1 SCR 216 :
(1984) 4 SCC 251; Ranjan Kumar and Others v. State
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
155
Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
of Bihar and Others (2014) 16 SCC 187 : 2014 INSC
276; Union of India and Others v. G. Chakradhar (2002)
5 SCC 146; Abhishek Kumar Singh v. G. Pattanaik and
Others [2021] 5 SCR 305 : (2021) 7 SCC 613 : 2021
INSC 305; Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India [1989]
Suppl. 2 SCR 597 : (1990) 1 SCC 613; S.L. Kapoor v.
Jag Mohan and Others [1981] 1 SCR 746 : (1980) 4 SCC
379; The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh
[1958] 1 SCR 595; Olga Tellis and Others v. Bombay
Municipal Corporation and Others [1985] Supp. 2 SCR
51 : (1985) 3 SCC 545; The Chairman Board of Mining
Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines and Another
v. Ramjee [1977] 2 SCR 904 : (1977) 2 SCC 256; B.N.
Nagarajan and Ors. v. State of Mysore and Ors. [1966]
3 SCR 682; Jaswant Singh Nerwal v. State of Punjab
and Others [1991] 1 SCR 411 : (1991) Supp 1 SCC
313; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [1999] 3 SCR 1173 :
(1999) 6 SCC 237; Aligarh Muslim University and Others
v. Mansoor Ali Khan [2000] Supp. 2 SCR 684 : (2000)
7 SCC 529 - referred to.
John v. Rees and Others [1969] 2 All ER 274; Ridge
v. Baldwin (1964) AC 40; Leary v. National Union of
Vehicle Builders [1970] 2 All ER 713; Ferd Dawson
Calvin v. John Henry Brownlow Carr & Ors. (1979) 2
WLR 755; Lloyd and Others v. McMahon [1987] 1 AC
625 - referred to.
List of Acts
Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995;
Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam,
1993; Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment
and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Selection; Appointment; Selection process; Bias; Members of
selection committee; Non-joinder of parties; Natural justice;
Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in Janpad Panchayat; Officers ex-officio;
Non-impleadment as parties; Opportunity of hearing; Violation
of principle of natural justice; Reasonable likelihood of bias;
Rule against bias; Violation of audi alteram partem; Procedural
complexities; Unsuccessful candidate; Notices; Definition of
156
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
relative; Recusal of committee members; Principle of prejudice;
Judicial review proceedings; Review of the decision-making
process; Interim orders; Divergent views; Constitution of a larger
Bench.
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, 4809 of 2011
Appearances for Parties
Neeraj Shekhar, Ashutosh Thakur, Dr. Sumit Kumar, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Mrinal Gopal Elker, Shashwat Parihar, Avadhesh Kumar Singh,
Rajender Kumar Singh, Ms. Suvarna Singh, Sanjay Kumar Visen,
Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J.K. Maheshwari J.
1.
After perusal of the judgment and view expressed by esteemed
brother Justice K.V. Viswanathan, in the facts of this case, I am
not in a position to agree with the reasoning and conclusions as
drawn by him, for which detailed reasons supporting my view is in
succeeding paragraphs.
2.
As per the facts of the case, the controversy in the present case
revolves around selection and appointment for the post of Shiksha
Karmi Grade-III in Janpad Panchayat Gaurihar, District Chhatarpur
in the State of Madhya Pradesh which relates back to the year
1998. The appellants who are ten (10) in number and four (4) other
candidates, in total fourteen (14) candidates who were close relatives
of the members of selection committee, had been placed in the final
selection list of 249 Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. For ready reference
the appellants and their relations are described in a tabular form as
under: -
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
157
Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Sl.
No.
Candidate
Committee
Member
Relationship
1.
Krishnadatt Awasthy
Pushpa Dvivedi
(Chairman)
Maternal
Nephew
2.
Shyama Dvivedi
Pushpa Dvivedi
(Chairman)
Sister-in-law
(Nanad)
3.
Prabha Dvivedi
Pushpa Dvivedi
(Chairman)
Sister-in-law
(Devrani)
4.
Rekha Avasthi
Pushpa Dvivedi
(Chairman)
Niece
5.
Prabhesh Kumari
Pushpa Dvivedi
(Chairman)
Niece
6.
Devendra Awasthi
Pushpa Dvivedi
(Chairman)
Nephew
(Sister's son)
7.
Sumer Singh
Swami Singh
(Member)
Son
8.
Ramrani Singh
Swami Singh
(Member)
Daughter in law
9.
Gita Rawat
Pushpa Dvivedi
(Chairman)
Sister
10.
Rita Dwivedi
Pushpa Dvivedi
(Chairman)
Sister of Vibha
who is Devrani
of Chairman
Thus, from the table above, the relationship of appellants with the
members of the selection committee is apparent and un-disputed.
3.
It is not inapposite to mention that at the previous stage of selection,
after preparation of the select list of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III by
Janpad Panchayat, Gaurihar, the same was challenged by one
Kunwar Vijay Bahadur Singh Bundela by filing an appeal before
the Collector, District Chhatarpur, who vide order dated 31.08.1998
quashed the selection list and remitted the matter for fresh selection.
Pursuant to the directions, fresh selection was conducted and the
final selection list consisting of 249 candidates including the names
of appellants and four others was published on 16.09.1998. As per
the said select list appointment orders were issued on 17.09.1998
appointing the candidates including the present appellants. Being
158
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
aggrieved by the selection and appointment of the appellants who
were near relatives of members of the selection committee and
non-selection of Smt. Archana Mishra who was an aspirant, filed an
appeal before the Collector, District Chhatarpur on various grounds
including the allegations as quoted in paragraph 14 of the order
passed by esteemed brother. It is not in dispute that the present
appellants were not impleaded as parties in the appeal before the
Collector, though Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Block
Development Education Officer and the President of the Education
Committee were arrayed as parties.
4.
On issuing notice in the said appeal, the counter affidavit was filed
by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, attaching the
certificate given by the Sarpanch of the Panchayat acknowledging the
relationship of the selected/appointed candidates with the members of
selection committee. As per the material placed, the findings recorded
by the Collector are relevant, which is reproduced as under: -
"3. ......So far as the question of selection of the relatives
of the members of Select Committee is concerned, it is
proved that the members of the Committee have selected
their relatives and the same is against the principles of
law. The facts given in the appeal have been admitted by
the Respondent Janpad Panchayat in its Reply that the
Committee President Smt. Pushpa Dvivedi's sister-in-law
(Nanad) Shyama Dvivedi daughter of Shiv Dass Dvivedi,
her sister-in-law (Devrani) Vibha Dvivedi wife of Kailash
Dvivedi, two sisters of the Devrani (Vibha Dvivedi) of the
Committee President namely Kum. Rashmi Dvivedi and
Km. Rita Dvivedi have been appointed at Serial No. 9 and
4 of the Select List. The certificate of Sarpanch has been
attached by the Respondent as evidence in this regard.
The Respondent has also admitted that Devender Kumar
Avasthi son of Brij Bhushan Avasthi, Rekha Awasthi,
daughter of Brij Bhushan Awasthi, Pravesh Kumar,
daughter of Brij Bhushan Awasthi are also the maternal
niece of the Chairman of the Selection Committee. Their
Selection No. is 176 and 30 respectively. Chief Executive
Officer has also stated in his reply that Summer Singh,
son of other member Swami Singh Sengar, daughter
in law Ram Rani, wife of Rudra Pratap Singh, nephew
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
159
Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, son Som Prakash Singh have
also been selected. Facts which have been admitted by
the Chief Executive Officer in his reply, they are reliable.
Chief Executive Officer has admitted in his reply Exh.-A
that selection of Badri Prasad, son of Bhagwat Prasad has
been made. He has been allocated 9 marks for experience,
but the Experience Certificate is not found enclosed with
his application. It is also proved from the reply submitted
by District Panchayat that selection of Shri Krishan Dutt
Awasthi, son of Sita Ram Awasthi has been made at No.
64. He is also the maternal nephew of the Chairman and
at Appointment Order No. 90 selection of Geeta Rawat,
- Ganga Prasad Rawat has been made. She is the real
sister of Chairperson. Committee of District Panchayat
has made the selection of his relatives in contravention
of various Sections of MP Panchayat Raj Act. It has been
restricted in Section 40(C) of Panchayat Raj Act that any
of the office bearers shall not cause financial gain to his
relatives. As per Section 40(C), act of any of the office
bearers of Panchayat to get job for his any relative in
Panchayat through his direct or indirect influence or to
act to cause financial benefit to any of his relatives like
carrying out of any work of the Panchayat through any
kind of contract shall amount to gross negligence towards
duties under the above Section and in such circumstances,
if it is done, then office bearers of the Panchayat could
be terminated. In Section 100 of the Act, acquisition of
any interest by any member office bearer or employee
directly or indirectly in any contract or any employment
made is strictly prohibited. In the present case, members
of the Committee of the District Panchayat have made the
selection of their relatives in order to cause benefit to them
in the entire selection procedure, which is contrary to the
principles settled by the law. Any person cannot be the
judge for himself. There is a principle of natural justice that
judge should see all persons with same eye. Selection of
the relatives of the members by the members has definitely
caused the discrimination with other members. In such
circumstances, selection of the relatives of the District
Panchayat is not lawful, which is liable to be cancelled...
160
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
As per the facts given in the case like respondents have
admitted in the above paras that selection of the relatives
of the members has been made in illegal manner, selection
of these relatives is cancelled and the appointment so
made is terminated."
(emphasis supplied)
From the above observation it can be safely perceived that the
members of the selection committee appointed the appellants who
were their relatives and had given benefit to them which is arbitrary
and discriminatory therefore vitiated.
5.
The appellants assailed the said order of Collector by filing revision
under Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Appeal and
Revision) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "A&R Rules").
It was submitted that quashment of their appointment by the
Collector without joining them and affording an opportunity is
in violation of the Principle of Natural Justice. The appellants in
the memo of revision had not denied their relationships with the
members of the selection committee and only averred that "it
is the wrong allegation that the appointments of the petitioners
have been cancelled by the Collector, Chhatarpur on the charge
of being relatives."
6.
The revisional authority (Commissioner Revenue) dismissed the
revision vide order dated 14.03.2000, in para (6) of the order it was
observed that the selection of the appellants is contrary to Section
40(C) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj
Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam'). The plea
of non-joinder and not affording an opportunity of hearing was not
found appealing because the relationship of the appellants with the
members of the selection committee, gave undue favour to them
and the same was not denied. The revisional authority was of the
opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, not joining the
appellants did not prejudice them. Further, the violation of principle
of bias attracts in this case which vitiates the selection. However, in
absence of any prejudice, decision of the Collector is not required
to be altered with.
7.
Aggrieved by the order of revisional authority, appellants filed a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
161
Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Court. Learned Single Judge with intent to afford an opportunity
allowed the appellants herein to inspect the records of selection
through their counsel, as spelt out in paragraph 13 of the order of
Single Judge which is reproduced as under: -
"13. During the course of hearing of this petition, as ordered
earlier the Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat
was present with the original records of selection. Shri
M.L. Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioners, was
granted permission to inspect the records he inspected the
records on 29.07.2008. The records have been perused
by this Court and is returned back to Shri Shailesh Mishra
after perusal."
Later, learned Single Judge formulated following three
questions: -
(i)
"The first question would be as to whether the appeal
was maintainable before the Collector under Rule 3;
(ii)
The second question is as to what is the effect of
cancellation of the appointment of the petitioners,
ordered without hearing them and without impleading
them as parties; and,
(iii) The third and final question would be as to whether the
Collector and Commissioner were right in interfering
with the selection of the petitioners for the reasons
indicated by them in the impugned order i.e... the
presence of the relatives as members of the selection
committee in which petitioners had participated"
8.
Question No. (i) relating to maintainability of appeal was answered
against the appellants. The said question is not of much relevance
at this stage, thus, in my view it is not required to be dealt with in
detail. Further, the Learned Single Judge dealt questions no. (ii)
and (iii) in detail as they relate to non-joinder of the appellants and
affording them an opportunity of hearing and presence of relatives of
appellants in the selection committee. The said question had been
answered in paragraphs 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the order. In my view
para 20 of the order of learned Single Judge is the foundational
discussion on the issues therefore it is relevant and reproduced
as under: -
162
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
"20. Item No.3 of Rule 2 deals with Shiksha Karmi - Grade
III, the educational qualification is Higher Secondary
Certificate Examination passed, and the Selection
Committee is to consist of: (i) Chairperson, Standing
Committee of Education of Janpad Panchayat; (ii) Chief
Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat; (iii) Block Education
Officer (Member Secretary); (iv) Two specialists in the
subject to be nominated by the Standing Committee for
Education of whom one shall be woman; and, (v) All
members of the Standing Committee of Education of
whom at least one belongs to the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes or OBC. In the present case, there is
no dispute that the Selection Committee was constituted
as per the aforesaid provision, but presence of two
members in the Selection Committee is to be taken
note of. The President of the selection Committee is one
Smt. Pushpa Dwivedi. She is Chairman of the Education
Committee and she has participated in the process of
selection of various candidates. Another member of the
Selection Committee was one Shri Swami Singh, who is
a Member of the Janpad Panchayat and has participated
in the process of selection as a Member of the Education
Committee. It is found by the Collector and the finding of
the Collector is affirmed by the Commissioner to the extent
that petitioner No.1 Smt. Shyama Dwivedi is the sisterin-law of the President of the Selection Committee Smt.
Pushpa Dwivedi. According to the finding recorded Smt.
Pushpa Dwivedi's sister-in-law (Nanand) Smt. Shyama
Dwivedi; her Devrani Smt. Vibha Dwivedi; two sisters
Rashmi Dwivedi and Rita Dwivedi have been appointed.
Apart from these persons, her nephew Devendra Awasthi
and her two nieces Ku. Rekha Awasthi and Ku. Prabhesh
Kumari have been appointed. That apart, it is found that
Smt. Gita Rawat, petitioner No.8, is also sister of Smt.
Pushpa Dwivedi. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that
eight members of the family belonging to the President
Smt. Pushpa Dwivedi have been selected for appointment
on the post in question. Apart from the aforesaid eight
persons petitioner Smt. Ramrani Singh is found to be
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
163
Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
daughter-in-law of Shri Swami Singh, who was Member of
the Committee; Shri Sumer Singh, petitioner No.6, is found
to be son of Shri Swami Singh and one of his nephew
Shri Rajesh Singh has also been found to be appointed.
Finding in this regard is recorded by the Collector and
the Commissioner on the basis of the statement made
by the Chief Executive Officer. The order-sheets dated
4.6.2002 and 24.6.2002 indicates that petitioners were
directed to file affidavits to show as to whether this is
a correct fact or not. The order-sheet dated 24.6.2002
indicates that time was sought by learned counsel for
the petitioners to file specific affidavit of the petitioners
denying their relationship with Members of the Selection
Committee or office bearers of the Janpad Panchayat.
Even though in pursuance to the aforesaid order, affidavits
have been filed, but in these affidavits the facts are
not denied and during the course of hearing Shri M.L.
Choubey fairly admitted that petitioners are related to Smt.
Pushpa Dwivedi and Shri Swami Singh, as recorded by
the Collector and the Commissioner and he accepts the
same, that being so, the finding recorded by the Collector
and the Commissioner to the effect that all the petitioners
are very closely related either to the President of the
Committee, or its Member is a correct finding. According
to the Collector and the Commissioner, the Panchayat
Raj Adhiniyam prohibits grant of any undue benefit by
Members and office bearers of the Panchayat to any of
its relatives or family members. Finding recorded is that
in this case some benefit has been granted."
(emphasis supplied)
9.
Paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 have already been reproduced by
esteemed brother in para 27 in his judgment. Discernibly, in para
21 thereto the arguments regarding presence of the members of the
selection committee do not materially affect the selection process
was raised by the appellants, which is answered in paragraphs 22
and 23. As reflected from paragraph 22, it drew the inference that
one of the appellants had obtained less marks in higher secondary
examination but she was accorded higher marks in oral interview
164
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and experience category, and included in her merit. While dealing
with the case of other candidates observed they secured less marks
in higher secondary in comparison to wait listed candidates and
granted more marks in oral interview due to which, they found place
in the selection list. In scrutiny of facts and the record learned Single
Judge was of the opinion that the appellants herein received less
marks in higher secondary whereas many persons whose names
appearing in wait list received 78% to 79% marks and they were
given less than three marks in oral interview, therefore, they have
not been given place in selection list. In paragraph 23 of the order,
the Learned Single Judge further dealt with the individual cases of
the appellants and concluded that the appellants whose relatives
were the members of the selection committee found favour in their
appointment, therefore, due to bias such appointments stood vitiated.
Applying the said analogy, the arguments of appellant(s) were not
found convincing enough to interfere with the orders of the Collector
and Commissioner in exercise of scope of Article 226 to warrant
interference by the High Court.
10. On analysing the order of the learned Single Judge in detail it is quite
vivid that despite affording due opportunity to controvert the factum of
relationship with the members of the selection committee and other
fact findings, they have not refuted those allegations disputing their
relationship. The record of the selection was produced before the
Learned Single Judge bench and it was inspected by the advocate
of the appellant(s) but they were not in a position to deny such facts
and allegations. Accordingly, it was observed that the selection of
the appellants who were relatives of the members of the selection
committee, is not as per the spirit of Section 40 and 100 of the
Adhiniyam which prohibits the office bearers to use any undue benefit
to any of its relative and family members. Learned Single Judge
applying the principles enunciated in the judgment of the A.K. Kraipak
and others Vs. Union of India and others; (1969) 2 SCC 262 and
evaluating the facts refused to exercise the jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. In the light of the judgment of the
State Bank of Patiala and others Vs. S.K. Sharma 1996 (3) SCC
364 learned Single Judge observed that appellants have afforded
ample opportunity of hearing therefore not joining them party at the
first instance before the Collector, should not prejudice them and the
plea of violation of principle of natural justice is not justified.
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
165
Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
11. The appellants challenged the order of the learned Single Judge
in Writ Appeal before the Division Bench which was dismissed
by the impugned judgement and the same is under challenge
before us. In the impugned judgement, it is said that relationship
of appellants with the members of selection committee has not
been denied. Analysing the findings of paras 21 to 23 of learned
Single Judge, it is seen how the relatives of the members of the
selection committee were given higher marks in interview though
they were having less marks in higher secondary and in the
category of experience with the other wait-listed candidates who
were given less marks in interview with an intent to push down
the meritorious candidates in the merit list The Division Bench
referring the judgments of A.K. Karipak (supra), J. Mohapatra &
Co. & Anr. Vs. State of Orissa & Anr.; (1984) 4 SCC 103, Ashok
Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.; (1985) 4 SCC
417, Kirti Deshmankar Vs. Union of India & Ors.; (1991) 1 SCC
104, Gurdip Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.; (1997) 10 SCC
641, Utkal University Vs. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi; (1999) 2
SCC 193, G.N. Nayak Vs. Goa University; (2002) 2 SCC 712,
Govt. of T.N. Vs. Munuswamy Mudaliar and Anr.; 1988 Supp
SCC 651: AIR 1988 SC 2232, Bihar State Mineral Development
Corporation Vs. Encon Builders (I) (P) Ltd.; (2003) 7 SCC 418
and in paragraph 23 observed as under: -
"The present factual matrix is to be tested on the aforesaid
enunciation of law. We have reproduced the analysis
made by the learned Single Judge. He has categorically
recorded that the relatives of the members of the selection
committee have been selected. The submission of the
learned counsel for the appellants is that if the marks
awarded by the interested persons are excluded then
also they would be selected. The said submission, if we
are permitted to say so, is a justification from hind sight.
The result manifests itself. In the case at hand, it does
not require Solomon's wisdom that bias is in stricto sensu
as from a reasonable mind could be thought. As we have
referred to the authorities above, bias is a state of mind
at work. Quite apart from above, when the degree of
relationship is in quite proximity, bias is to be inferred and
the authorities below have inferred the same and after
166
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
detailed discussion, the learned Single Judge has given
the stamp of approval to the same."
(emphasis supplied)
12. In the backdrop of the above factual matrix, as analysed and
recorded, the Division Bench did not find any fault in the findings
of two quasi-judicial authorities and learned Single Judge. While
dismissing the appeal and refusing to entertain the plea of violation
of principle of natural justice, it was observed that since the selected
candidates were relatives of the office bearers of the committee, the
possibility of reasonable likelihood of bias cannot be obliterated. Once
the possibility of likelihood of bias kicks in, the selection process
stands vitiated. It is said that in absence of any demonstrable
prejudice to the appellants, their appointment cannot be approved.
On the plea of not joining them as party before the Collector, the
Division Bench observed in paragraph 11 as thus:
"11. The second aspect is whether the orders passed by
the Collector and the Commissioner should have been
quashed by the learned Single Judge as the appellants
who had been visited with adverse civil consequence
were not arrayed as parties before the Collector. It is
urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that in
view of the law laid down in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon
(supra) and M/s Laksmi Precision Screws Limited
(supa), no person should be visited with an adverse
civil consequence without affording him a reasonable
opportunity of hearing. There cannot be any cavil on
the aforesaid proposition. The learned Single Judge has
placed reliance on the decision rendered in State Bank
of Patiala and Others v. V.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC
364 to come to hold that unless prejudice is caused
due to non-granting of hearing, the orders should not be
mechanically interfered with. It is worth noting that the
appellants had preferred the revision. They participated
in the hearing before the revisional authority in all
aspects. The Commissioner had called for the entire
selection proceeding and other documents on record
were available to the petitioners therein. There was due
deliberation in respect of the defence put forth by the
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
167
Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
revisionists. That apart, the learned Single Judge had
called for the parties. In view of the aforesaid, we are of
the considered opinion 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 to re-adjudicate singularly on the ground
that the appellants herein should have been impleaded
as a parties and that the matter should be reheard. The
said exercise in the peculiar facts and circumstance so
the case is unwarranted."
(emphasis supplied)
13. In view of the foregoing, it is clear that while challenging the selection
and appointment of the appellant before the Collector, they were
not the party. However, in revision they challenged the said and
afforded the opportunity but their contentions did not find favour
with revisional authority. As per the findings recorded and also by
Learned Single Judge, it is clear that the appellants were relatives
of the members of the selection committee which is not permissible
as per the spirit of Sections 40 and 100 of the Adhiniyam. The
Division Bench confirmed those findings holding that in the facts
of the case, reasonable likelihood of bias cannot be ruled out. It
was also held that at initial stage the appellants were required to
be joined as parties before the Collector but because they have
been given due opportunity by the revisional authority, before
learned Single Judge, it has not caused any prejudice. Looking to
the uncontroverted facts only their non-joinder before the Collector
would not vitiate the order impugned.
14. In the above factual background, it is required to be appreciated
that whether due to non-joining the appellants before the Collector
violates the principle of natural justice ? Consequently, whether
the findings recorded against the appellants by two quasi-judicial
authorities, writ court and the writ appellate court is liable to be
interfered with in this appeal?
15. For appreciating the said issue, it is necessary to refer Sections 40
and 100 of the Adhiniyam, which are reproduced as thus: -
168
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
"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 office-bearer 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:]"
"100. Penalty for acquisition by a member, office bearer
or servant of interest in contract. - If a member or office
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
169
Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
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 lo have committed
an offense under Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (XLV of 1860)."
16. On perusal of the said provision, the intention of the legislators is
lucid that a person can be removed from the office mainly on two
instances, firstly, if they are guilty of misconduct and secondly,
their continuation in office is undesirable in public interest. The
provision further attempts to enlist the events which typically fall
within the definition of misconduct. Clause (c) of the first explanation
to Section 40 encompasses use of position by direct or indirect
influence to secure employment for the relatives and extending
any pecuniary benefits to them as misconduct.