2025 Supreme(SC) 1222

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Pawan Kumar Tiwary And Others – Appellants
VERSUS
Jharkhand State Electricity Board (Now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited) And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 10893-10896 of 2025 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 26860-26863 of 2023
Decided On : 19-08-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appointment – Cancellation – Mere technical irregularities in appointment processes and in absence of evidence of illegality, arbitrariness or fraud cannot be a ground to undo appointments, especially when appointees are not at fault.
(2) Appointment – Cancellation – Doctrine of Severability – Courts must exercise heightened care and adopt a calibrated approach, especially in matters involving mass appointments – Doctrine of Severability must not be relegated to a post-facto exercise; it ought to inform judicial inquiry from threshold.
(3) Appointment – Jurisprudential divide between irregular and illegal appointments is neither artificial nor academic.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Appointment – Reversal by Division Bench of High Court – Primary basis on which Division Bench set aside appellants’ appointments was on the basis of conclusion having been arrived at that appointments were made beyond sanctioned strength – No contemporaneous record has been shown that contradicts the sanctioned strength status at the time of appointments – Standing Order No.812 highlights posts were duly sanctioned and advertised through proper channels, followed by selection through established norms of scrutiny – While procedural irregularities, if proven to be mala fide or substantially affecting fairness, may vitiate a selection process, in present case, selection was conducted through tests and interviews overseen by a selection committee – Entire process culminated in formal appointment letters being issued – Mere technical irregularities in appointment processes and in absence of evidence of illegality, arbitrariness or fraud cannot be a ground to undo appointments, especially when appointees are not at fault – Division Bench appears to have blurred distinction between irregular and illegal appointments. (Paras 19, 20, 22 and 23)

(B) Service Law – Appointment – Cancellation – Doctrine of Severability and Imperative of Individualized Scrutiny – Validity of an individual appointment must be assessed on the basis of appointee's own merit, eligibility, and conformity to applicable rules – Courts must resist tendency to issue blanket invalidations of entire batches of appointments merely on the basis of procedural infirmities that affect only a portion of appointments – Principles of fairness, proportionality, and individual justice are foundational to administrative law and demand that a case-by-case analysis be undertaken before issuing sweeping orders of cancellation – Doctrine of severability is not merely a tool of constitutional adjudication but a principle of fairness – In Service Law, it protects deserving employees from fallout of administrative missteps not attributable to them – Appellants fulfilled all eligibility conditions, were appointed within sanctioned strength, and underwent requisite selection process – Action of Board in cancelling appellants’ appointments en masse without affording them opportunity of hearing and without considering legality of each appointment separately reflects not only violation of principles of natural justice but also abdication of duty to make reasoned, individualized decisions – There is neither any suggestion nor proof of fraud, collusion, or misrepresentation on their part – At best, process suffers from procedural lapses not attributable to appointees – Such infirmities render appointments irregular, not illegal – Impugned orders passed by Division Bench and confirmed in review set aside to the extent they relate to appellants – Appointments of appellants declared to be legal and valid. (Paras 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34, 38 and 39)

(C) Service Law – Appointment – Jurisprudential divide between irregular and illegal appointments is neither artificial nor academic – An appointment may be irregular if it deviates from established procedure, but it crosses into realm of illegality only where it violates statutory mandates, is made without existence of a sanctioned post, or is tainted by fraud – Conflating two categories leads to manifest injustice, particularly when individuals, who have no role in procedural defect, are visited with severest consequence of termination – Service jurisprudence in India must evolve to reflect a nuanced, fact-specific approach that separates legally sustainable appointments from those that are vitiated – It is neither just nor desirable to extinguish careers of deserving employees merely for administrative convenience or to avoid labour of segregation – Practice of indiscriminately declaring entire batches of appointments as void undermines not only morale of sincere employees but also credibility of public administration – In all future cases of large-scale appointment irregularities, authorities and courts must mandatorily consider possibility of segregation and apply doctrine of severability before taking extreme step of cancellation. (Paras 35 and 35)

(D) Service Law – Appointment – Cancellation – Doctrine of Severability – Courts must exercise heightened care and adopt a calibrated approach, especially in matters involving mass appointments – Doctrine of Severability must not be relegated to a post-facto exercise; it ought to inform judicial inquiry from threshold – Early-stage discernment of whether appointments can be segregated based on sanctioned strength, eligibility, and absence of wrongdoing, enables court to preserve what is lawful while excising only what is vitiated – Such approach aligns with constitutional morality, protects institutional credibility, and ensures that administrative missteps do not culminate in judicial overcorrection – Where recruitment process is irredeemably marred by pervasive fraud or institutional malaise, Court may be compelled reluctantly to nullify entire selection process in larger interest of constitutional integrity – In such cases, exception to principle of natural justice would not lead to potential injustice to untainted candidates and necessity of maintaining public confidence in institutional processes ought to take precedence – To mechanically apply drastic remedy of en masse cancellation in such a scenario where appointments are otherwise regular, fall within sanctioned strength, and are untainted by illegality, would be to conflate irregularity with illegality, and to punish innocent for administrative lapses they neither caused nor participated in it – Doctrine of Severability is not only available but must be invoked to uphold constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16. (Paras 37, 41 and 43)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals arise from the common order dated 22.12.2021 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA Nos. 512 and 647 of 2018, whereby Division Bench allowed the appeals of respondents and set aside the appellants’ appointments to Class III posts, reversing relief granted to them by Single Judge.

Questions that arise for consideration are: –

(I) Whether findings of Division Bench with respect to illegality in appointment of appellants warrant interference?

(II) If appointment is held to be legal, whether they are entitled to any consequential benefits?

Findings of Court:

Applicants in present I.A. are not necessary parties for adjudication of issues arising here, and their rights, if any, are not concluded by this judgment. They are at liberty to pursue remedies available to them in accordance with law and no opinion is expressed in that regard. Accordingly, I.A. stands dismissed.

Result : Appeals allowed.