The Supreme Court distinguished between irregular and illegal appointments, holding that procedural lapses not attributable to the appointees do not render appointments void if made against sanctioned posts by competent authority. The doctrine of severability applies to protect valid appointments from en masse cancellation, ensuring compliance with Articles 14 and 16. Natural justice mandates individual scrutiny before termination.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellants were initially appointed to Class-IV posts in the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB) between 2004–2006. Subsequently, they applied for and were selected for Class-III posts (Routine Clerk and Lower Division Assistant) through an internal recruitment process in 2009, pursuant to a standing order. Their appointments were formally made via office orders dated 24.04.2009. However, JSEB subsequently stayed all internal appointments and constituted an enquiry committee, which cited irregularities and alleged that the appointments were made beyond the sanctioned strength. Based on this report, the Chairman of JSEB cancelled the appellants’ appointments in July 2010. The appellants challenged this cancellation in the High Court. A Single Judge quashed the cancellation orders, directing their reinstatement without back wages. On appeal, the Division Bench reversed this decision, holding the entire selection process illegal. The Division Bench’s order was confirmed in review, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The appellants challenged their termination before the Jharkhand High Court in W.P. (S) Nos. 1248 and 1269 of 2010. A Single Judge partly allowed the writ petitions in 2018, quashing the cancellation orders and directing the appellants’ reinstatement without back wages, treating their appointments as irregular but not illegal. The Jharkhand State Electricity Board and the appellants both filed Letters Patent Appeals. In 2021, a Division Bench allowed the Board’s appeal, setting aside the Single Judge’s order and declaring the appointments illegal for being beyond the sanctioned strength. The Division Bench dismissed the appellants’ cross-appeal seeking consequential benefits. The High Court subsequently dismissed the appellants’ review petitions in 2023, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
READ ALSO :Supreme Court: Delayed Payment Not Always Contempt, But Bank Must Pay for Protracted Litigation
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the Division Bench erred in declaring the appellants’ appointments illegal without conducting an individualized scrutiny. It emphasized the crucial distinction between an “irregular” appointment, which may suffer from procedural lapses, and an “illegal” one, which is void ab initio for violating statutory mandates or lacking a sanctioned post. The Court found the appellants’ appointments were made against duly sanctioned vacancies, through a proper selection process, and without any allegation of fraud or ineligibility on their part. Therefore, any procedural infirmities only rendered the appointments irregular, not illegal. The Court underscored the mandatory application of the doctrine of severability to protect valid appointments from en masse cancellation and held that the termination violated principles of natural justice as no show-cause notice or hearing was provided.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned orders of the Division Bench and the Review Court. It declared the appellants’ appointments vide Office Orders dated 24.04.2009 as legal and valid, and quashed the subsequent cancellation orders insofar as they concerned the appellants. The Court directed their reinstatement with continuity of service and notional fixation of seniority, pay, and consequential benefits like increments and promotion eligibility from their original appointment date. However, adhering to the principle of “no work, no pay,” the appellants were denied actual back wages for the period they were out of service. The judgement emphasized that the findings were confined solely to the three appellants based on their specific circumstances.
Case Details:
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Tiwary & Others vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board (Now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited) & Others Citation: 2025 INSC 1000 Civil Appeal No.: (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 26860-26863 of 2023) Date of Judgement: August 19, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar
Download The Judgement Here