Natural justice and recusal safeguards: ex parte cancellation failed, while bias in selection was not established.

Selection of Shiksha Karmis was not shown to be vitiated by bias where the committee was statutorily constituted, recusal safeguards were built in, and no factual basis established participation by related members in marking. However, ex parte cancellation of the appointments was unsustainable because the affected selectees were denied notice and an opportunity to show cause, amounting to a total breach of audi alteram partem for which separate proof of prejudice was unnecessary. The later revisional hearing did not cure the original denial of hearing, since revision could not substitute for the statutorily required first opportunity to be heard.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the selection of Shiksha Karmis was vitiated by the rule against bias; (ii) whether denial of hearing at the original stage violated audi alteram partem and whether prejudice had to be shown; and (iii) whether the initial breach of natural justice could be cured at the revisional stage.

Issue (i): whether the selection of Shiksha Karmis was vitiated by the rule against bias.

Analysis: The selection committee was statutorily constituted, and a unanimous recusal resolution required members with close relatives among candidates to keep away from the interview and to have marks assessed through the Chief Executive Officer. The record did not show participation by the related members in awarding marks, and the statutory definition of "relative" was not fully applied by the authorities. In these circumstances, the allegation of bias remained unsupported by a solid factual foundation. The doctrine of necessity also had relevance because the committee composition was mandated by the Rules and the process had built-in recusal safeguards.

Conclusion: The selection was not vitiated on the ground of bias.

Issue (ii): whether denial of hearing at the original stage violated audi alteram partem and whether prejudice had to be shown.

Analysis: Where adverse action is taken without notice to the affected selectees, the breach goes to the core of procedural fairness. The authorities treated the matter as if the selectees need not be heard because the appointments were thought to be unsustainable, but the dispute involved contested facts and the legal effect of the recusal resolution was never examined. The statutory scheme itself contemplated an opportunity to show cause, and the absence of notice amounted to a total denial of hearing rather than a mere defect in the manner of hearing. In such a case, the rule that prejudice must be separately demonstrated does not save the order.

Conclusion: The appellants were denied a fair hearing and the defect was fatal.

Issue (iii): whether the initial breach of natural justice could be cured at the revisional stage.

Analysis: The revisional remedy was confined to questions of law and could not substitute for the first hearing that the selectees were entitled to receive. A fair hearing at a later stage does not ordinarily validate a void initial decision, particularly where the statutory scheme requires notice and the revisional order substantially repeated the original order. The process therefore remained tainted despite the later proceedings.

Conclusion: The defect at the original stage could not be cured in revision.

Final Conclusion: The selection could not be sustained on the basis of bias, but the ex parte cancellation of the appointments was set aside because the affected selectees were denied notice and hearing, and the later revisional proceedings did not cure that foundational defect.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute contemplates notice and an opportunity to show cause, a total denial of hearing at the original decision-making stage ordinarily invalidates the action, and such a breach is not cured merely because a revisional forum later hears the matter.

---