Pawan Kumar Tiwary & Ors. v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board 2025 INSC 1000 - Service - Multiple Appointment Challenge - Doctrine Of Severability

Service Law -Where multiple appointments are challenged on general grounds, authorities and courts must undertake a detailed fact-specific analysis before concluding that all such appointments are void. The doctrine of severability must guide real administrative action and judicial reasoning in service matters (Para 49) When appointments of large numbers of persons are questioned, courts and authorities must: (i) Separate the legally sustainable from the unsustainable (ii) Apply the test of eligibility and sanctioned strength (iii) Assess whether there was fraud or misrepresentation (iv) Provide an opportunity of hearing before cancellation (Para 32)- The validity of an individual appointment must be assessed on the basis of the appointee's own merit, eligibility, and conformity to the applicable rules. Courts must resist the tendency to issue blanket invalidations of entire batches of appointments merely on the basis of procedural infirmities that affect only a portion of the appointments. The 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- when appointments are found to be irregular, the inquiry must focus on whether such irregularity amounts to illegality, and whether the appointee had any role or knowledge of the deviation. If not, and the appointee was otherwise eligible, qualified, and appointed against a sanctioned vacancy, there is no justification for nullifying such appointment. (Para 24-25) An irregular appointment is one where procedure is not strictly followed but the appointee is otherwise qualified and the post is sanctioned. An illegal appointment, on the other hand, is void ab initio, such as where the appointee is ineligible or the post does not exist. When appointments are questioned on grounds of irregularity, the inquiry must not end with detecting the infirmity but must proceed further to distinguish those whose appointments are unimpeachable. Justice demands separation, not erasure. (Para 31) Referred to State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee): The Baishakhi principle rightly recognizes that where the recruitment process is irredeemably marred by pervasive fraud or institutional malaise, the Court may be compelled albeit reluctantly to nullify the entire selection process in the larger interest of constitutional integrity. In such cases, exception to the principle of natural justice would not lead to potential injustice to untainted candidates and the necessity of maintaining public confidence in institutional processes ought to take precedence. (Para 40-41)

Doctrine of severability - The rule is grounded in equity and legal logic: where bad can be separated from good, the good must not perish with the bad– The doctrine is not merely a tool of constitutional adjudication but a principle of fairness. In service law, it protects deserving employees from the fallout of administrative missteps not attributable to them. (Para 26,27)

Constitution of India - Article 14,16 - The right to employment, though not a fundamental right, is nevertheless protected under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution insofar as it requires fair, just, and non-arbitrary treatment of similarly situated individuals. (Para 30)

Service Law - Seniority and other service benefits can be protected through notional fixation, even if back wages are not granted- The doctrine of "no work, no pay" does not preclude the grant of notional service benefits, particularly where the fault lies not with the employee but with the administration. (Para 46)