LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 126Decided 29 Jan 2025
Civil Appeal Nos. 4806, 4807, 4808, 4809 of 2011
Justice Hrishikesh Roy · Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia · Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

Background

In 1998, 249 candidates including the appellants were selected as school teachers (Shiksha Karmi Grade III) in a Janpad Panchayat in Madhya Pradesh. An unsuccessful candidate challenged the selection before the Collector, alleging nepotism and bias because some selection-committee members were related to selected candidates. The Collector cancelled the appointments without ever hearing the selected candidates, and this cancellation was upheld through revision and writ proceedings. The matter reached the Supreme Court, where an earlier two-judge bench split 1-1: one judge (J.K. Maheshwari) held the selection was rightly set aside for bias, while the other (K.V. Vishwanathan) held that cancelling the appointments without giving the selectees a hearing itself violated natural justice. The case was referred to this larger three-judge bench to resolve the deadlock.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that the selectees were never given an opportunity to be heard before their appointments were cancelled, and this defect at the very first stage (before the Collector) could not be cured by a later hearing at the revision stage: an unfair initial hearing followed by a fair appeal is still, in substance, an unfair process. Relying on the principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard), the Court preferred Justice Vishwanathan's opinion and set aside the Division Bench judgment that had upheld the cancellation. Given that the selection dated back to 1998 and the appellants had worked in their posts for over 25 years under interim orders (with one having already retired), the Court declined to order a fresh inquiry as impractical and unjust, and allowed the appeals, leaving parties to bear their own costs.

Lesson Learnt

Even when there are serious allegations of bias or wrongdoing, no person's rights or livelihood can be taken away without first giving them a genuine opportunity to be heard: a defect at the first decision-making stage generally cannot be fixed simply by allowing an appeal later.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case