Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to the selection and appointment of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in Janpad Panchayat Gaurihar, District Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh, in 1998. The appellants, ten in number, along with four other candidates, were close relatives of members of the selection committee, including the Chairman Smt. Pushpa Dvivedi and member Swami Singh. Their relationships were undisputed and included maternal nephews, sisters-in-law, nieces, sons, and daughters-in-law. The initial selection was challenged by Kunwar Vijay Bahadur Singh Bundela before the Collector, who quashed it and ordered a fresh selection. The fresh selection list of 249 candidates, including the appellants, was published on 16.09.1998, and appointment orders were issued on 17.09.1998. Smt. Archana Mishra, an aspirant, filed an appeal before the Collector alleging nepotism and violation of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. The Collector, after considering the reply of the Chief Executive Officer admitting the relationships, cancelled the selection and terminated the appointments of the relatives, citing violation of Section 40(C) and Section 100 of the Act. The appellants filed a revision before the Commissioner Revenue, who dismissed it, holding that the selection was contrary to law and the plea of non-joinder was not tenable as the relationship was not denied. The appellants then filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court. The Single Judge allowed them to inspect the records but ultimately dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court, in a split verdict, with Justice J.K. Maheshwari dissenting from Justice K.V. Viswanathan, upheld the cancellation. The court held that the selection of relatives by the committee members was arbitrary, discriminatory, and vitiated by bias, violating the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. The court emphasized that no person can be a judge in his own cause and that the selection was patently illegal. The plea of non-joinder and lack of opportunity was rejected as the relationship was undisputed and no prejudice was caused. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the orders of the Collector and the revisional authority.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Bias and Nepotism - Selection of Relatives by Selection Committee Members - Section 40(C) and Section 100 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 - The selection of close relatives of the selection committee members was held to be arbitrary, discriminatory, and in violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. The court held that the members of the selection committee cannot be judges in their own cause and such selection vitiates the entire process. (Paras 2-4, 6) B) Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Non-Joinder of Parties - The cancellation of appointments by the Collector without impleading the selected candidates and affording them an opportunity of hearing was challenged. However, the revisional authority and the court found that since the relationship was undisputed and the selection was patently illegal, no prejudice was caused to the appellants. The principle of bias overrides the requirement of hearing in such cases. (Paras 5-6) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, upheld the cancellation of appointments after affording the appellants an opportunity to inspect records. The court found that the selection was contrary to law and the appellants had no right to be heard as the illegality was apparent. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the selection and appointment of close relatives of members of the selection committee for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III is valid and whether the cancellation of such appointments without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appointees is sustainable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the orders of the Collector, Commissioner Revenue, and High Court cancelling the appointments of the appellants. The court held that the selection was vitiated by bias and nepotism, and the cancellation was justified despite the lack of hearing, as the illegality was apparent and the relationship was undisputed.
Law Points
- Principle of natural justice
- bias
- nepotism
- Section 40(C) of MP Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam
- 1993
- Section 100 of the same Act
- non-joinder of parties
- opportunity of hearing
- prejudice
- discrimination
- arbitrary selection
