Krishnadatt Awasthy vs State of M.P. & Ors.

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 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 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]