Supreme Court Holds No-Notice Cancellation Of Rural Teacher Appointments Invalid, Upholds Right To Hearing

A three-judge bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and S.V.N. Bhatti heard appeals challenging the validity of appointments to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III in Janpad Panchayat, Gaurihar (1998). The appeals arose from a split earlier decision by two judges of this Court and raised a direct conflict between the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem).

The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the Division Bench and lower authorities’ orders which had cancelled the appointments without issuing notice to the selected candidates. The majority affirmed the view that while an allegation of bias required proof and could not be inferred where recusal occurred and no marks were awarded by the related members, the total denial of the right to be heard struck at “the fundamental core of procedural fairness.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In the absence of notice, the breach strikes at the fundamental core of procedural fairness, rendering the decision invalid unless exceptional circumstances justify such deviation. 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 therefore be the norm. In view of the foregoing, a gross violation of the principle of audi alteram partem is noticed in the present case.” The Court added that “the principle of audi alteram partem is the cornerstone of justice, ensuring that no person is condemned unheard,” and concluded that the defect at the initial stage could not be cured merely by subsequent revisional or appellate proceedings.

Background The dispute began when an unsuccessful candidate challenged a select list prepared in 1998; the Collector quashed an earlier list and after a fresh selection 249 candidates were appointed on 17.9.1998, including the appellants. Archana Mishra alleged nepotism and bias because several selected candidates were related to members of the selection committee. The Collector set aside the appointments on 2.6.1999, concluding that the recruitment was vitiated by bias and noting that “it is proved that the appointment of these relatives could not be deemed to be according to the prescribed procedure and the scheme and therefore, it is not necessary to call them up.” The Commissioner in revision and the Madhya Pradesh High Court Division Bench upheld cancellation, relying on statutory provisions (Section 40(c) and Rule 100 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj enactment) and precedents on reasonable likelihood of bias.

At the Supreme Court, one judge (Justice J.K. Maheshwari) agreed that the rule against bias vitiated the selections, while Justice K.V. Vishwanathan held that the selections were set aside in breach of audi alteram partem because the selected candidates were not impleaded and were not given an opportunity to be heard; he also pointed to non-compliance with Rule 9 of the Appeal & Revision Rules, 1995. The three-judge bench analysed statutory provisions (Panchayat Shiksha Karmis Rules, 1997 and Adhiniyam, 1993), the effect of a unanimous recusal resolution by the Janpad Panchayat, and authorities on tests for bias and the scope of appellate cure. The majority found no proven actual bias because concerned members recused themselves and did not award marks, but held that the total non-service of notice breached the core of natural justice and could not be cured by revisional proceedings. Given the long lapse since 1998 and continuous service of the appointees, the Court declined to remand for fresh inquiry and allowed the appeals; parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4806 OF 2011 (with C.A. Nos. 4807-4809 of 2011); Reportable as 2025 INSC 126 Case Title: Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned Senior Counsel (for appellants) For the Respondent(s): Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, learned counsel; Mr. Avdhesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel