KRISHNADATT AWASTHY versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 4 S.C.R. 151 · Decided: 04-04-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.K. MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 27 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* 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 

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