After Split Verdict, Supreme Court 3-Judge Bench Rejects Challenge To Appointment Of Shiksha Karmis In Madhya Pradesh

The Supreme Court (yesterday on January 29), while deciding a case pertaining to the appointment of Shiksha Karmis, opined that bias cannot be inferred if members, who were alleged to be close relatives of appointees, did not participate in the interview.“In a scenario such as this where the members did not participate in the interview, a reasonable likelihood of bias in our opinion cannot reasonably be inferred. While it is true that actual bias need not be proved, this appears to be a case of allegation of bias without any foundational footing.,” the Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia And S.V.N. Bhatti opined while deciding the case referred to it due to the pronouncement of a split verdict.Essentially, the appellants/Shiksha Karmis had challenged the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to cancel their appointments in 1998 due to the appellants' relationship with the members of the selection committee.While Justice JK Maheshwari had upheld the High Court's decision to cancel the appointment of the Appellants, Justice KV Viswanathan reversed the High Court's order cancelling the appointment. Due to the split verdict, the matter was referred to the 3-judge bench.At the outset, the Court reiterated that courts, under its writ jurisdiction, should not interfere with the selections made by expert bodies. Interference with selections is limited to decisions vitiated by bias, malafides and violation of statutory provisions., the Court marked.Adverting to the question of whether the selection was in violation of the natural justice principle of bias, the Court examined the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis Rules, 1997. It also opined that Indian courts have been consistent in their approach by applying the test of real likelihood of bias.Taking a cue from this, the Court said that in the present case, the recusal resolution mandated close relatives of the candidates to recuse themselves from the interview process. Thus, the Court refused to accept that the recused persons had any kind of influence over the process because they did not award any marks. It also pointed out that a few candidates did not fall within the scope of this definition of 'relative'. Further, the selected candidate was not given the opportunity of hearing at the initial stage, which prevented them from demonstrating their case.To support this, the Court also said that the doctrine of necessity is an exception to the rule against bias. The doctrine of necessity recognizes that decision-making bodies need to function even in circumstances where potential conflicts of interests may arise., the Court said. Elaborating, it also observed that this doctrine would also work in cases of small jurisdictions where qualified persons are few and there are chances of parties knowing them. Reliance was placed on Charanjit Singh v Harinder Sharma., (2002) 9 SCC 732.Further, relying upon a thread of precedents including the constitution bench decision in Ashok Kumar Yadav v State of Haryana and Javid Rasool Bhat v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, the Court concluded that the present case is a case of mere suspicion and not of reasonable likelihood of bias.“The selectees were not arrayed and they couldn't contest the selection before the Collector, in the absence of a complete picture on the process, it is all the more difficult to deduce that there was a reasonable likelihood of bias. In light of the aforesaid reasons, our conclusion in this matter is that the selection is not vitiated on account of violation of the nemo judex rule.”Focusing on the issue audi alteram partem (right to hear), the Court again relied on the landmark judgments including Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India and Maneka Gandhi v Union of India. Referring to its decision in SL Kapoor v Jagmohan., the Court said that one exception to this rule is where only one conclusion is possible.Applying this to the facts of the case, the Court said that it was a case of disputed facts. Endorsing the view of Justice Vishwanathan, the Court said that the collector ought to have impleaded the candidates.“Significantly the legal effect of recusal was not examined in the orders and it is difficult to speculate what the conclusion of the Collector and the Revisional authority would have been, if they were posted of the recusal resolution.”It added that in cases where principles of natural justice are already incorporated into statutory procedure, the question of prejudice due to their non-observance cannot be raised. After referring to the relevant rules, the Court opined:“In the absence of notice, the breach strikes at the fundamental core of procedural fairness, rendering the decision invalid unless exceptional circumstances justify such deviation. The vitiation of selection was not only a breach of the principles of natural justice but also contrary to the express statutory provision that required for an opportunity to show cause and an opportunity to provide...

After Split Verdict, Supreme Court 3-Judge Bench Rejects Challenge To Appointment Of Shiksha Karmis In Madhya Pradesh

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

After Split Verdict, Supreme Court 3-Judge Bench Rejects Challenge To Appointment Of Shiksha Karmis In Madhya Pradesh

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers