SC: Divergent Views on Bias & Natural Justice in Shiksha Karmi Selection; Larger Bench to Decide

The Supreme Court in Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2024 INSC 252, decided on 4 April 2024, considered a long-running dispute concerning the selection and appointment of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III candidates in Janpad Panchayat, Gaurihar, Madhya Pradesh. The controversy arose from the 1998 selection process in which several selected candidates were relatives of members of the statutory Selection Committee. The appointments were subsequently challenged on grounds of bias, favouritism and violation of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993.

The case principally raised two competing aspects of natural justice: the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem). The appellants argued that their appointments could not have been cancelled by the Collector without impleading and hearing them at the original stage. The respondents, on the other hand, relied upon the close relationships between the candidates and Selection Committee members, the marks awarded in the interview and the statutory restrictions against office-bearers using their position to secure employment for relatives.

The Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice K.V. Viswanathan delivered divergent opinions. Justice Maheshwari held that the selection process was vitiated by reasonable likelihood of bias and that the failure to implead the appellants before the Collector did not warrant interference because they subsequently received adequate opportunities before the revisional authority and the High Court. The appeals were dismissed.

Justice Viswanathan took a different view. He held that the appellants had suffered a breach of audi alteram partem because they were directly affected by the Collector’s decision but were not impleaded or heard at the original stage. According to him, the limited revisional jurisdiction available under the applicable Rules did not cure the defect, and judicial review also could not substitute for a proper hearing before the original fact-finding authority. He therefore allowed the appeals and directed that the appellants continue in service.

Because of these divergent views, the Supreme Court directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench. The earlier interim order was directed to continue in the meantime. Thus, the supplied judgment does not represent a final unanimous determination of the dispute.