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

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

The Court held that although the presence of relatives on the selection committee gave rise to an allegation of bias, recusal by the concerned members and the statutory recusal resolution meant a reasonable likelihood of bias could not be inferred on the facts; however, the Collector’s decision to set aside appointments without issuing notice violated the core of audi alteram partem and was vitiated. A defect at the original stage generally cannot be cured at revisional stage; nevertheless, in view of the long delay (selection in 1998) and continuous incumbency of the appointees for over twenty-five years, a remand for fresh inquiry was held impractical and the appeals were allowed.

Parties
Appellant: Krishnadatt Awasthy; Respondent: State of M.P. & Ors.; Respondent: Archana Mishra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court (larger Bench)
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Rule Against Bias (nemo Judex in Causa Sua), Audi Alteram Partem (right to Fair Hearing), Doctrine of Necessity, Judicial Review of Selections, Recusal, Prejudice Exception
Administrative Law Panchayat Raj Law Service Law Natural Justice Rule Against Bias (nemo Judex in Causa Sua) Audi Alteram Partem (right to Fair Hearing) Doctrine of Necessity Judicial Review of Selections +2 more

Case Brief

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Krishnadatt Awasthy

Appellant

State of M.P. & Ors.

Respondent

Archana Mishra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court (larger Bench)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the selection is vitiated for violation of the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua)
  2. 2 Whether there was a violation of the principle of audi alteram partem and whether demonstration of prejudice is necessary to succeed in such a claim
  3. 3 Whether denial of audi alteram partem at the original stage can be cured at the revisional/appellate stage

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that although the presence of relatives on the selection committee gave rise to an allegation of bias, recusal by the concerned members and the statutory recusal resolution meant a reasonable likelihood of bias could not be inferred on the facts; however, the Collector’s decision to set aside appointments without issuing notice violated the core of audi alteram partem and was vitiated. A defect at the original stage generally cannot be cured at revisional stage; nevertheless, in view of the long delay (selection in 1998) and continuous incumbency of the appointees for over twenty-five years, a remand for fresh inquiry was held impractical and the appeals were allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Appeals allowed and judgment of the Division Bench set aside
  • Finding of reasonable likelihood of bias rejected on facts; however Collector's ex parte cancellation without notice held vitiated for breach of audi alteram partem