Breach of natural justice does not invalidate appointment cancellation unless the candidate demonstrates actual prejudice.

The appellant was appointed as a Primary Teacher under the visual disability category based on a certificate assessing his disability at 45%.

Following complaints of forged certificates in Morena district, the Commissioner of Public Instructions ordered re-examinations.

The appellant was re-examined twice by Medical Boards; both times, he was found to have no visual disability or disability below the 40% threshold.

The appellant challenged this cancellation in W.P. No. 28904/2023, which was dismissed by the Single Judge.

The present writ appeal was filed against said dismissal, with the appellant asserting he should be migrated to the unreserved category due to high merit.

1. Whether a candidate appointed under a reserved disability category can be migrated to the unreserved/open category upon his disability certificate being found false.

2. Whether the cancellation of appointment is vitiated by the non-grant of a formal opportunity of hearing (Principles of Natural Justice) where no prejudice is shown.

The Court applied Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

The Court relied on the "Prejudice Doctrine" and the "Useless Formality Theory" concerning Natural Justice, citing Nirma Industries Ltd. v. SEBI (2013) regarding the requirement to prove actual prejudice.

Chairman, SBI v. M.J. James (2022) stating that breach of audi alteram partem does not per se lead to invalidity.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commr. of Central Excise (2015) on the flexibility of natural justice; and Canara Bank v. Debasis Das (2003) regarding the futility of writs where facts are indisputable.

The Court rejected the migration plea, noting that allowing the appellant to move to the open category would deprive a genuinely disabled person of an appointment and displace the last-ranked candidate in the open category, who was not a party to the suit.

Regarding Natural Justice, the Court held that since the appellant had undergone two re-verifications by a Medical Board, the requirement of due process was met.

Under the "Prejudice Doctrine," the Court observed that the appellant failed to produce any medical evidence or prescriptions to contradict the Medical Board’s findings.

Therefore, a formal show-cause notice would have been a "useless formality" as the facts regarding his lack of disability were established by expert medical opinion.

The Writ Appeal was dismissed; the interim order was vacated, and the appellant was directed to immediately stop functioning as a Primary Teacher.