KRISHNADATT AWASTHY versus STATE OF M.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1173 · Decided: 29-01-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HRISHIKESH ROY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 31 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.