LexPAWAN KUMAR TIWARY AND OTHERS versus JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (NOW JHARKHAND URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED) AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1352 : 2025 INSC 1000 Pawan Kumar Tiwary and Others v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board (Now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited) and Others (Civil Appeal No(s). 10893-10896 of 2025) 19 August 2025 [J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the findings of the Division Bench with respect to illegality in the appointment of appellants warrant interference; if the appointment is held to be legal, whether they are entitled to any consequential benefits. Headnotes† Service Law – Cancellation of appointments, en masse – When not justified – Doctrine of severability – Test of individual scrutiny – Appellants’ appointments to Class III posts were set aside by High Court primarily on the ground that appointments were made beyond the sanctioned strength and thus, were illegal – Interference with: Held: 1.1 The conclusion of the High Court that the appointments were made beyond the sanctioned strength is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable – The Enquiry Report itself records that appointments were within the sanctioned strength – Moreover, the respondents have now admitted that the appointments of the appellants were within prescribed sanctioned strength. [Paras 19, 21] 1.2 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 is not only a violation of principles of natural justice but also abdication of the duty to make reasoned, individualized decisions. [Para 33] 1.3 High Court also failed to apply the test of individual scrutiny, which is now a bedrock requirement in service jurisprudence and * Author [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1353 Pawan Kumar Tiwary and Others v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board (Now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited) and Others broadly stated that appointments were made beyond sanctioned strength and hence illegal, without distinguishing between individual cases – The doctrine of severability is not only available but must be invoked to uphold the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment u/Arts.14 and 16. [Paras 32, 43] 1.4 Appellants were appointed against sanctioned vacancies and were duly qualified – Appointments were made by the competent authority after following due process of selection and at worst, any infirmity could only render the appointments irregular, not illegal – There is neither any suggestion nor proof of fraud, collusion, or misrepresentation on the part of the appellants. [Paras 34, 23] 1.5 Impugned orders passed by the Division Bench and confirmed in review are set aside to the extent they relate to the appellants – Appointments of the appellants are legal and valid – They are entitled to continuity in service and restoration of seniority w.e.f the date of their initial appointment, however, not entitled to arrears of salary for the period they were out of service – Appellants also be granted notional fixation of pay and other consequential benefits, as applicable. [Paras 39, 45] Service Law – Constitution of India – Arts.14, 16 – Doctrine of severability – Significance – Cancellation of appointments en masse: Held: Doctrine of severability 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 – The doctrine of severability 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 – The right to employment, though not a fundamental right, is nevertheless protected u/Arts.14 and 16 – The doctrine of severability is not only available but must be invoked to uphold the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment u/Arts.14 and 16. [Paras 26, 27, 30, 43]. Service Law – Irregular and Illegal appointments – Distinction – Doctrine of severability, applicability of – Appointments of large numbers of persons questioned – Test of individual 1354 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports scrutiny – Duty of Courts, authorities – Factors to be considered, enumerated: Held: An irregular appointment is one where procedure is not strictly follo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.