Violation of Principles of Natural Justice by Failing to Hear Affected Parties Renders Administrative Order Nullity

The Petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker for Budhipadar Anganwadi Centre on 09.10.2024

Opposite Party No. 5 (Malati Sahu) challenged this appointment by filing an appeal, RMA (AWW) Case No. 08 of 2024, before the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Boudh

On 13.11.2025, the ADM passed an order quashing the entire selection process and indirectly cancelling the Petitioner’s appointment

The Petitioner moved the High Court under Articles 226 and 227, asserting that the impugned order was passed without notice to her or an opportunity to be heard

1. Whether the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice

2. Whether an order entailing adverse consequences can be sustained if passed without hearing the affected party

The Court applied the fundamental principles of Natural Justice, specifically audi alteram partem (the right to be heard).

It relied on the Seven-Judge Bench decision in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, which established that a violation of natural justice renders an act a nullity

It further cited Dattu Namdev Thakur v. State of Maharashtra regarding the quashing of such orders

Asit Kumar Kar v. State of West Bengal regarding the necessity of hearing persons affected by adverse orders

Durgawati Singh v. Deputy Registrar to affirm that such invalidations allow for fresh proceedings

The Court observed that while the Petitioner was impleaded as Respondent No. 6 in the proceedings before the ADM (O.P. No. 2), the record indicated that no notice was issued to her, nor was she given an opportunity to be heard

The counsels for all parties, including the State and the original Appellant (O.P. No. 5), conceded that natural justice had not been complied with

Applying the cited precedents, the Court reasoned that since the order had adverse consequences—effectively terminating the Petitioner’s employment—the lack of procedural fairness rendered the order a nullity

Consequently, the matter required a de novo adjudication to rectify the procedural defect

The Court remitted the matter back to the Additional District Magistrate, Boudh, with directions to decide the case afresh as per law after providing all parties, including the Petitioner, a full opportunity of being heard

The proceedings are to be completed within three months from the date of filing the certified copy of the judgment