Service law – Selection and appointment – Selection process, if vitiated by bias, the candidates being close relatives of the members of selection committee – Non-joinder of parties in the initial appeal, if violative of the natural justice – Post of Shiksha Karmi Grade – Selection and appointment of 249 candidates including ten appellants and four other candidates, who were close relatives of the members of selection committee – Challenged to, before the Collector, by one of the aspirant – Only officers ex-officio impleaded as parties and not the appellants and the members of the selection committee – Cancellation of selection of appellants and four others since the members of the selection committee being their relatives gave them benefit thus, selection process vitiated – Said order upheld in Revision – Writ petition there against, dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court holding that the appellants were afforded ample opportunity of hearing thus, not joining them as party at the first instance before the Collector, should not prejudice them and plea of violation of principle of natural justice not justified – Division Bench also dismissed the appeal – Interference with:

Held: (per Maheshwari, J.) ‘Rule against bias’ proved as reasonable likelihood of bias was fully established irrefutably – Without showing prejudice mere non- joinder even at initial stage does not violate the natural justice doctrine – Action of appellants of not controverting their relationship with the parties and not demonstrating the manner in which they have been prejudiced before the revisional authority and the Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court, their representation before the Collector would not have improved their case or compelled the Collector to arrive at a different finding – Plea of non-impleadment is a useless formality and the court should not entangle itself in procedural complexities – In view of the principle of prejudice, the judgment passed by the Single Judge as confirmed in writ appeal reaffirming the judgment of the Collector and Commissioner, setting aside the selection of the appellants does not suffer from any infirmity, warranting interference of this Court – Held: (per Viswanathan J.) When an unsuccessful candidate challenged the selection process, where the specific grievance was against 14 candidates under the category of relatives and the overall figure was 249, at least the candidates against whom specific allegations were made and who were identified ought to have been given notices and made a party – Courts below makes no reference to resolution providing for recusal of committee members who had their close relatives appearing for the interview – Furthermore, the principle of prejudice not applicable since there was a complete denial of opportunity – Breach of principles of natural justice in the proceedings before the Collector at the original stage did not stand cured on account of the proceedings before the revisional authority – Given a chance before the Collector perhaps the appellants would have met each and every objection of the sole complainant – For the failure of complainant and the Collector, the appellants cannot be made to pay – By virtue of interim orders, the appellants are discharging their duties for the past twenty five years, thus, not in the interest of justice to remand the matter for a fresh enquiry – Impugned judgment of the Division Bench set aside – Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 – Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 – Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 [Paras 35, 43, 46, 60, 66, 75-77] – Per Court: In view of the divergent views, issuance of directions to the Registry to place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench.