KRISHNADATT AWASTHY versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

KRISHNADATT AWASTHY versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

The two learned Judges reached divergent conclusions: one Judge found the reasonable likelihood of bias from the participation of committee members whose relatives were selected and, while recognizing the bias, held that mere non-joinder at the initial stage did not vitiate where no prejudice was demonstrated and...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Krishnadatt Awasthy; Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of the High Court (writ Appeal) to the Supreme Court
Outcome
Divergent judgments at Supreme Court; matter directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench
Legal Topics
Selection and Appointment, Bias and Rule Against Bias, Natural Justice (audi Alteram Partem), Non Joinder of Parties, Judicial Review, Recusal, Prejudice Test
Administrative Law Service Law Constitutional Law Selection and Appointment Bias and Rule Against Bias Natural Justice (audi Alteram Partem) Non Joinder of Parties Judicial Review +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Krishnadatt Awasthy

Appellant

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of the High Court (writ Appeal) to the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether participation of selection committee members whose relatives were candidates created a reasonable likelihood of bias vitiating the selection process
  2. 2 Whether appellants’ non-joinder and lack of hearing before the Collector violated the principle of audi alteram partem
  3. 3 Whether proceedings before the revisional authority/higher forum cured any breach of natural justice at the original stage

Ratio Decidendi

The two learned Judges reached divergent conclusions: one Judge found the reasonable likelihood of bias from the participation of committee members whose relatives were selected and, while recognizing the bias, held that mere non-joinder at the initial stage did not vitiate where no prejudice was demonstrated and subsequent revisional and High Court opportunities were afforded; the other Judge held that failure to implead and hear the specifically identified selected candidates before the Collector was a complete denial of audi alteram partem that was not cured by the revisional proceedings (given the revisional power was limited), and that the Collector should have given notice and an...

Court Disposition

Divergent judgments at Supreme Court; matter directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench

Orders

  • Matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench
  • Per J.K. Maheshwari, J.: appeals dismissed (affirming Collector, Commissioner and High Court insofar as selection was set aside on ground of reasonable likelihood of bias and non-joinder caused no prejudice)