Krishnadatt Awasthy & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Background
In 1998, ten appellants (including Krishnadatt Awasthy) were among fourteen candidates selected as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III teachers in Janpad Panchayat Gaurihar, Madhya Pradesh. All fourteen selected candidates were close relatives of members of the selection committee (nephews, nieces, sons, daughters-in-law, etc. of the committee chairman and a member). Years later, a complainant (Respondent No. 4) challenged only the appellants' appointments before the Collector without formally making the appellants parties to that proceeding; the Collector cancelled the selections, and this was upheld by a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The appellants argued they were condemned without being heard (violation of natural justice), since they were never impleaded in the proceedings that cost them their jobs.
Decision Breakdown
The two judges disagreed. Justice J.K. Maheshwari held that even though the appellants were not formally impleaded before the Collector, this was a "useless formality" because the appellants never disputed their close family ties to the selection committee members and could not show what defence would have changed the outcome, so he would dismiss the appeals and uphold cancellation of their appointments. Justice K.V. Viswanathan disagreed, holding that denial of a hearing before an authority that strips away a person's 25-year livelihood is a serious breach of natural justice that cannot be excused by hindsight, and reasoned that the appellants deserved a chance to contest the case before the Collector; he would have allowed the appeals and confirmed the appellants' appointments as valid. Because of this even split on a two-judge Bench, no final order could be passed: the appeals were instead directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for referral to a larger Bench, with the existing interim orders (letting the appellants continue in service) to remain in force meanwhile.
Lesson Learnt
Even glaring conflicts of interest in a selection process do not automatically justify skipping basic due process: an affected employee ordinarily has a right to be heard before an adverse order takes away their job, and when judges disagree on how far that right extends, the case may need to go before a larger Bench rather than be decided by a split vote.