Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Appointment Of Shiksha Karmi's In Madhya Pradesh

The Supreme Court on Thursday (April 04) delivered a split verdict in a case concerning the appointment of Shiksha Karmis in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellanst/Shiksha Karmis challenged the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Division Bench whereby the High Court canceled their appointment based on the appellants' relationship with the members of the selection committee.

The Bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan delivered a split verdict.

Justice JK Maheshwari upheld the High Court's decision to cancel the appointment of the Appellants, whereas Justice KV Viswanathan reversed the High Court's order canceling the appointment of the Appellants.

In the instant case, it was alleged by respondent no.4 that from the final selection list of 249 candidates, a total of 14 candidates i.e., appellants herein are the close relatives of the selection committee members, hence, due to bias such appointments stood vitiated. The allegation levelled by respondent no.4 was that the appointment was not done fairly due to the involvement of personal bias on the part of the selection committee while favoring the appointment of the appellants

The respondent no.4 i.e., the complainant filed a representation before the Collector without impleading the appellants and members of the selection committee. Moreover, the Collector without noticing the non-impleading of the appellants and selection committee members held in favor of respondent no.4, thereby cancelling the Appellant's appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi.

The point of consideration in the present matter was whether non-impleading of the Appellants and members of the selection committee would amount to a violation of the second limb of the principle of natural justice i.e., audi alteram partem (right to be heard).

While upholding the collector's decision to cancel the appellant's appointment, Justice Maheshwari stated that since the 'rule against bias' was established against the appellant's therefore, non-impleading of the appellants and selection committee's members wouldn't violate the principle of audi alteram partem. The judge termed the plea of non-impleading of the appellants as a useless formality.

“In the sequel of above factual narration, first limb of natural justice that is 'rule against bias' was proved as reasonable likelihood of bias was fully established irrefutably. The violation of another limb i.e. audi alteram partem, which is procedural, has been prayed by the appellants on the pretext of their non¬joinder at the initial stage; in my opinion, without showing prejudice mere nonjoinder even at initial stage does not violate the natural justice doctrine in the case at hand.”, Justice JK Maheshwari said.

On the other hand, Justice KV Viswanathan opined that the non-impleading of the appellants would amount to providing 'no opportunity at all' to the appellants to put their defence against the allegations labeled by respondent no.4 and thus, violates the principle of audi alteram partem.

"It is well settled that in service matters when an unsuccessful candidate challenges the selection process, in a case like the present where the specific grievance was against 14 candidates under the category of relatives and when the overall figure was only 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.", Justice KV Viswanathan said.

"It has been held that the principle that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing was a constant lode star that has lit the judicial horizon of this country.", Justice Viswanathan added.

Based on the above premise, due to divergent views expressed by the Bench, the court directed the Registry to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of a larger Bench. In the meantime, the interim order passed earlier shall remain in operation.

Counsel For Appellant(s) Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Thakur, Adv. Dr. Sumit Kumar, Adv.

Counsel For Respondent(s) Mr. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Mr. Avadhesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajender Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Suvarna Singh, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR

Case Title: KRISHNADATT AWASTHY VS. STATE OF M.P.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment