Supreme Court: Where Multiple Appointments Are Challenged On General Grounds, Authorities & Courts Must Undertake Detailed Analysis

The Supreme Court held that 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 Court held thus in Civil Appeals arising from the common Order of the Jharkhand High Court’s Division Bench, which set aside the appointments to Class III posts, reversing the relief granted by the Single Judge.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar observed, “We reiterate for future guidance that 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 not remain a mere theoretical doctrine but must guide real administrative action and judicial reasoning in service matters.”

The Bench emphasised that the Courts must exercise heightened care and adopt a calibrated approach, especially in matters involving mass appointments.

Senior Advocates Gopal Shankarnarayanan and Puneet Jain appeared on behalf of the Appellants while Senior Advocate Navaniti Prasad Singh appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Appellants were appointed to Class IV posts in the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB) during the years 2004-2006. In 1999, the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna issued a Standing Order regarding appointment to Non-Technical Class III posts through internal advertisement. The Standing Order explicitly stated that the percentage of vacancies against sanctioned posts to be filled through departmental candidates should not exceed the percentage indicated against each post. Pursuantly, the Director, Personnel, JSEB invited applications for appointment to the posts of Routine Clerks, Junior Accounts Clerk, Lower Division Assistant and other posts through internal process as per the qualifications prescribed for the relevant posts. The Appellants along with other appointees made representations through their service association before the competent authority for redressal of their grievances.

However, no response was received. The Enquiry Committee held all the appointments made through various office orders to be unconstitutional, including Office Order through which Appellants were appointed. The Appellants made multiple representations for restoring the appointments made, however, there was no response from JSEB. Hence, they filed Writ Petitions and the Single Judge partly allowed the same by quashing the Office Orders and holding that their appointment shall for all intent and purpose be treated as fresh appointment and they would not be entitled for any back wages, seniority or other benefit based on their earlier appointment/promotion. However, the Division Bench reversed the said findings. Being aggrieved, the Appellants approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “It is by now well settled in service jurisprudence that 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.”

The Court said that the Appellants, as evidenced by record, fulfilled all eligibility conditions, were appointed within the sanctioned strength, and underwent the requisite selection process.

“It is here that the doctrine of severability assumes great significance. 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, though largely applied in constitutional and statutory interpretation, has gained considerable traction in service jurisprudence where a set of appointments are sought to be invalidated en masse”, it remarked.

The Court was of the view that the doctrine of severability is not merely a tool of constitutional adjudication but a principle of fairness and in service law, it protects deserving employees from the fallout of administrative missteps not attributable to them.

“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. The appellants' dismissal, without issuing a show cause or opportunity of hearing, is a clear violation of principles of natural justice, and falls afoul of the law laid down in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another6, wherein it was held that “even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice”, it added.

The Court further enunciated that 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. … The High Court failed to apply the test of individual scrutiny, which is now a bedrock requirement in service jurisprudence”, it further said.

The Court observed that 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.

The Court also noted that the action of the Board in cancelling the Appellants’ appointments en masse without affording them an opportunity of hearing and without considering the legality of each appointment separately reflects not only a violation of principles of natural justice but also abdication of the duty to make reasoned, individualized decisions.

“The doctrine of severability must not be relegated to a post-facto exercise; it ought to inform the judicial inquiry from the threshold. Early-stage discernment of whether appointments can be segregated based on sanctioned strength, eligibility, and absence of wrongdoing, enables the court to preserve what is lawful while excising only what is vitiated. Such an approach aligns with constitutional morality, protects institutional credibility, and ensures that administrative missteps do not culminate in judicial overcorrection”, it elucidated.

Conclusion

Moreover, the Court referred to the Judgment in the case of State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others (2025) saying that it 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 the absence of demonstrable malaise and where individual appointments are legally sustainable, we must lean in favour of preservation, not obliteration. … while the appellants shall be entitled to continuity in service and restoration of seniority with effect from the date of their initial appointment on 24.04.2009, they shall not be entitled to arrears of salary for the period they were out of service. However, to protect their future service rights, they shall be granted notional fixation of pay and other consequential benefits subject to applicable rules such as increments and promotion eligibility”, it held and concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, declared the appointments of the Appellants as legal, and quashed the Office Orders.

Cause Title- Pawan Kumar Tiwary and Others v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board (Now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited) and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1000)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocates Gopal Shankarnarayanan, Puneet Jain, AOR Bhaskar Aditya, Advocates Vishal Singh, Sejal Jain, Pradyut Kashyap, Shourya Dasgupta, and Soumya Priyadarshinee.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Navaniti Prasad Singh, AORs Anup Kumar, Vaibhav Niti, Advocates Shruti Singh, Neha Jaiswal, Ekta Bharati, Shivam Kumar, Madhavi Agrawal, Madhur Mahajan, Jairaj Singh, and B. Srinivas.

Click here to read/download the Judgment