Supreme Court Upholds Teacher Appointments, Emphasizing Fair Hearing: Krishnadatt Awasthy vs. State of M.P. (2025)

Date of the Judgment: January 29, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 126
Judges: Hrishikesh Roy J, Sudhanshu Dhulia J, S.V.N. Bhatti J

Can a selection process be deemed invalid if some members of the selection committee are related to the selected candidates? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of school teachers. This judgment highlights the importance of fair hearing and the rule against bias in administrative decisions. The Supreme Court, in a split verdict, ultimately upheld the appointments, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to the principle of audi alteram partem, or the right to a fair hearing, at the initial stage of any decision-making process.

Case Background

The case revolves around the appointment of 249 Shiksha Karmis (school teachers) in Janpad Panchayat, Gaurihar, in 1998. Ten of the selected candidates were alleged to be relatives of the members of the selection committee. Initially, a complaint was filed by an unsuccessful candidate, Archana Mishra, alleging nepotism and bias in the selection process. The Collector, District Chhatarpur, set aside the appointments of the selected candidates who were relatives of the selection committee members. The Collector stated that the recruitment was vitiated due to bias and nepotism, as some members of the selection committee were family members of the selected candidates.

The Collector’s decision was based on Section 40(c) and Section 100 of the Panchayat Raj Act Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, which prohibits office bearers from facilitating financial gains to relatives. The Collector also relied on a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment, which stated that appointments not made as per the scheme could be terminated without a hearing.

Aggrieved by this, the selected candidates filed a revision petition. The Commissioner dismissed the petition, upholding the Collector’s decision, stating that the selection was contrary to Section 40(c) of the Adhiniyam, 1993. The Commissioner also brushed aside the plea of non-joinder and lack of hearing, relying on the admission of the relationship between the selected candidates and the selection committee members.

Subsequently, the appointees filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which was also dismissed. The High Court observed that although the appointees were not given a hearing at the initial stage, a full opportunity of hearing was granted at the Revisional stage. The High Court also relied on the principle that the presence of interested parties in the selection committee creates a reasonable likelihood of bias. A writ appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench.

The matter then reached the Supreme Court, where a split verdict was delivered. Justice KV Vishwanathan held that the selection was erroneously set aside due to a breach of the principle of audi alteram partem. Justice JK Maheshwari, on the other hand, upheld the cancellation of the appointments, stating that the rule against bias was violated. This led to the matter being placed before a larger bench.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The initial challenge to the selection was made by an unsuccessful candidate, Archana Mishra, before the Collector, District Chhatarpur. The Collector set aside the appointments of the selected candidates who were relatives of the selection committee members. The Collector stated that the recruitment was vitiated due to bias and nepotism.

The selected candidates then filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Revenue, Sagar Division, which was dismissed. The Commissioner upheld the Collector’s decision, stating that the selection was contrary to Section 40(C) of the Adhiniyam, 1993.

Subsequently, the appointees filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which was also dismissed. The High Court observed that although the appointees were not given a hearing at the initial stage, a full opportunity of hearing was granted at the Revisional stage. The High Court also relied on the principle that the presence of interested parties in the selection committee creates a reasonable likelihood of bias. A writ appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench.

The matter then reached the Supreme Court, where a split verdict was delivered. Justice KV Vishwanathan held that the selection was erroneously set aside due to a breach of the principle of audi alteram partem. Justice JK Maheshwari, on the other hand, upheld the cancellation of the appointments, stating that the rule against bias was violated. This led to the matter being placed before a larger bench.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997, framed under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. Rule 2(h) defines a ‘Shiksha Karmi’ as a person appointed for teaching in schools under the control of Zila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat.

Rule 5 outlines the methods of selection and recruitment. Sub-rule 8 specifies that the Selection Committee shall be constituted as per Schedule II. Sub-rule 9 details the assessment criteria for candidates, including marks for qualifying exams, teaching experience, and oral tests.

The composition of the selection committee, as per Schedule II of the Rules, 1997, includes:

• Chairperson, Standing Committee of Education of Janpad Panchayat
• Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat
• Block Education Officer (Member Secretary)
• Two specialists in the subject, one of whom shall be a woman
• All members from the Standing Committee, with at least one member from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or OBC.

Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, deals with the removal of office bearers of Panchayat. Clause (c) of the explanation to Section 40 states that “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”. The explanation defines “relative” to include father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son, daughter, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, or daughter-in-law.

Section 100 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, specifies penalties for members, office bearers, or servants of Panchayat who acquire a personal interest in any contract or employment with the Panchayat.

The judgment also refers to Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, which states that the appellate or revisional authority must provide an opportunity for parties to be heard.

Arguments

The appellants argued that their appointments were canceled without a hearing and without being made a party to the challenge. They contended that the allegations of unfair selection were based on an incorrect narrative. They pointed out that no relatives participated in their selection, nor did they award any marks to influence the selection. They further argued that the marks obtained by the challenger were not higher than the marks obtained by the selectees.

The respondents argued that Section 40(c) of the Adhiniyam, 1993, prohibits office bearers from causing financial gain to their relatives. They contended that the presence of close relatives in the selection process vitiated the selection process. They also argued that any non-adherence to the principles of audi alteram partem was cured by the proceedings before the Commissioner, where the appellants were given a full opportunity. They further argued that the close relationship between the committee members and the selected candidates established a reasonable likelihood of bias.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the selection is vitiated for violation of the first limb of natural justice i.e. rule against bias?
2. 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?
3. Whether the breach of the principle of audi alteram partem at the original stage can be cured, at the Revisional stage?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered various authorities while deciding the case. These have been categorized by the legal points they address:

Rule Against Bias

✓ Dimes v. Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal (1852) – Established that the rule against bias extends to the appearance of bias, not just actual bias.

✓ R v. Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy [1924] – Held that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

✓ Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC) v Lannon (1969) – Defined real likelihood of bias as a situation where a reasonable man would think it likely that the decision-maker would favor one side over the other.

✓ R v Gough 1993 – Shifted focus to the possibility of bias rather than its probability.

✓ Porter v Magill (2002) – Modified the test to whether a fair-minded observer would conclude there was a real possibility of bias.

✓ Manak Lal v Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi 1957 – Indian Courts have consistently adopted the ‘real likelihood’ test to determine bias.

✓ Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Co 2024 – Summarized the Indian position as applying the test of real likelihood of bias or reasonable apprehension of bias.

✓ J Mohapatra v State of Orissa (1984) – The Court recognized that the doctrine of necessity serves as an exception to the rule against bias.

✓ Charanjit Singh v Harinder Sharma (2002) – The Court noted that in a small town, it would be difficult to constitute a selection committee of total strangers.

✓ A.K. Kraipak v Union of India (1969) – Emphasized that the presence of interested parties in the selection committee creates a reasonable likelihood of bias.

✓ Javid Rasool Bhat v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1984) – Distinguished Kraipak, stating that there was no suspicion of bias when a member recused themselves.

✓ Ashok Kumar Yadav v State of Haryana (1985) – Held that if a member desists from interviewing their relative, it is acceptable.

✓ Jaswant Singh Nerwal v State of Punjab 1991 – Held that selection was not vitiated when a member did not participate in the deliberation when their son appeared for viva voce.

Audi Alteram Partem

✓ Ridge v Baldwin [1964] – Landmark decision in British administrative law, considered a magna carta of natural justice.

✓ Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr (1978) – Observed that natural justice has advanced beyond old frontiers.

✓ Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India (1981) – Held that the rule of fair play must not be jettisoned except in exceptional circumstances.

✓ Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) – Described natural justice as a profound humanizing principle designed to imbue the law with fairness and ensure justice.

✓ S.L. Kapoor v Jagmohan (1980) – Held that non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice.

✓ Bank of Patiala v SK Sharma (1996) – Made a distinction between a total violation of the rule of fair hearing and violation of a facet of that rule.

✓ Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Dy. Comm. Of Central Excise, Gauhati and Ors. (2015) – Held that it is not permissible for the authority to dispense with the requirement of natural justice.

✓ State of UP v Sudhir Kumar Singh (2021) – Summarized the position of law on the prejudice exception.

✓ Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India (2023) – Observed that procedural fairness is a requirement that holds an inherent value in itself.

Curing Breach of Natural Justice

✓ Australian Workers’ Union v Bowen (1948) – Held that any flaw in the original proceedings was remedied by a fair appeal.

✓ Annamunthodo v Oilfield Workers’ Trade Union [1961] – Ruled that a flaw in natural justice during the initial hearing could not be remedied by an appeal.

✓ Leary v. National Union of Vehicle Builders (1970) – Held that a failure of natural justice at the initial stage cannot be cured at the appellate stage.

✓ Calvin v Carr (1979) – Gave a qualified endorsement to the Leary principle.

✓ Lloyd v McMahon (1987) – Considered the Calvin principle but commented that the question must be answered by considering the particular statutory provisions.

✓ Institute of Chartered Accountants v. L. K. Ratna (1986) – Endorsed the position adopted by Megarry J in Leary.

✓ State of U.P. v. Mohammed Nooh (1958) – Established that an appeal cannot validate what is clearly a nullity.

✓ Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mirja Khasim (1977) – Established that an appeal cannot validate what is clearly a nullity.

✓ Charan Lal Sahu v Union of India (1990) – Applied the Calvin principle in exceptional circumstances.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the selection was not vitiated by bias, as the concerned members had recused themselves from the interview process. However, the Court emphasized that the principle of audi alteram partem was violated because the selected candidates were not given an opportunity to be heard before their appointments were canceled. The Court also held that a breach of natural justice at the initial stage cannot be cured by an appellate body.

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities in reaching its decision:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the principle of audi alteram partem. The Court noted that the selected candidates were not given a chance to present their case, which is a fundamental requirement of natural justice. The Court also highlighted that the members who were relatives of the candidates recused themselves from the interview process, which addressed the concerns of bias. The Court also noted that the statutory definition of ‘relative’ was not specifically considered by the lower authorities.

The Court also took into consideration that the selection was made in 1998 and the appellants have been working for over twenty-five years under interim orders. The Court noted that remanding the matter for a fresh inquiry would be an injustice to the appointees.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principle of audi alteram partem and the need to ensure that all parties are given an opportunity to be heard. The factual aspects of the case, such as the relationship between the selected candidates and the selection committee members, were considered, but the legal principles were given more weight.

Logical Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning followed a logical path, first addressing the issue of bias, then the violation of audi alteram partem, and finally whether the violation could be cured. The Court’s reasoning was based on well-established legal principles and precedents.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, in a split verdict, upheld the appointments of the school teachers, emphasizing the importance of the principle of audi alteram partem. The Court held that the selected candidates were not given a fair hearing before their appointments were canceled, which is a fundamental requirement of natural justice. The Court also held that a breach of natural justice at the initial stage cannot be cured by an appellate body. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the need for all parties to be given an opportunity to be heard in any decision-making process.