Supreme Court Re-asserts Doctrine of Severability and Individualised Scrutiny in Mass-Cancellation of Appointments

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in Pawan Kumar Tiwary v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board (2025 INSC 1000) marks a significant elaboration of service jurisprudence, especially when large batches of government appointments are later questioned for procedural lapses.

Three Class-IV employees—Pawan Kumar Tiwary, Hemant Kumar Choubey and Amar Kumar—had earned in-house promotions to Class-III posts (Routine Clerk and Lower Division Assistant) within Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB). A later enquiry branded 537 such appointments “unconstitutional” for alleged overshooting of sanctioned strength and other irregularities. The Board cancelled every appointment, and the Jharkhand High Court’s Division Bench endorsed the mass-cancellation.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that:

They were appointed squarely within sanctioned vacancies;
No allegation of fraud, misrepresentation or ineligibility was levelled against them;
The wholesale cancellation without notice violated natural justice.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court (Aravind Kumar & J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.) held:

The appellants’ appointments were within sanctioned cadre strength and therefore legal, not illegal.
At most, any procedural lapses rendered the appointments “irregular”; irregularity does not justify blanket termination.
The doctrine of severability requires authorities and courts to excise only the tainted or unsustainable appointments rather than cancelling the entire batch.
Natural-justice principles mandate notice and individual assessment before depriving employees of their posts.
The appellants are reinstated with continuity of service and notional benefits but without back-wages (no-work-no-pay rule).

3. Analysis

3.1 Key Precedents Cited & Their Influence

Vikas Pratap Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh (2013) 14 SCC 494 – clarified the divide between irregular and illegal appointments; relied on by Single Judge and again by Supreme Court to show that mere procedural deviation, absent fraud, does not nullify the appointment.
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 – cited to underline that technical irregularities alone cannot invalidate appointments where the process is otherwise fair and the post exists.
R.S. Garg v. State of U.P. (2006) 6 SCC 430 – emphasised that appointments to sanctioned posts remain valid even when temporary or procedurally flawed.
Upendra Narayan Singh (2009) 5 SCC 65 – restated that faultless employees should not suffer for administrative lapses.
K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109 and Gowramma (2022) 11 SCC 794 – invoked to grant notional seniority and future benefits without back-wages.
Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (2025 SCC OnLine SC 719) – recent precedent clarifying when entire selection processes may be scrapped; Court distinguished current facts from the pervasive fraud in Baishakhi.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

Factual Re-assessment: The enquiry report itself showed that the specific posts of Routine Clerk (11 seats) and LDA (5 seats) were within quota. Respondents admitted this during oral hearing.
Irregular vs. Illegal: An appointment is illegal only if (a) the post is non-existent, (b) statutory provisions are violated, or (c) fraud/impersonation is present. Here none existed; hence appointments only “irregular”.
Doctrine of Severability: Courts must surgically remove defective appointments without harming the valid ones. Mass-cancellation is a last resort, reserved for cases of systemic malaise.
Natural Justice: Cancelling appointments without show-cause or hearing violates Articles 14 & 16 as explicated in Maneka Gandhi. Even administrative orders producing civil consequences require audi alteram partem.
Relief Calibration: Reinstatement with continuity and notional benefits strikes a balance: innocent employees are protected, yet the exchequer is not burdened with back-wages for a period of non-service.

3.3 Potential Impact

Service Jurisprudence: The judgment consolidates a line of authority obliging courts/authorities to conduct individualised scrutiny before nullifying appointments. Blanket orders risk being overturned.
Administrative Practice: Government departments must maintain detailed vacancy and cadre-strength records and cannot rely on broad assertions of “excess appointments”.
Future Litigation: Employees impacted by mass-cancellations now have a reinforced precedent for seeking segregation of their cases and protection where they are within sanctioned strength.
Balancing Test: The Court articulates a workable compromise—reinstatement with notional benefits but no back-pay—likely to guide remedies in similar contexts.
Natural-Justice Threshold: Establishes that even in systemic irregularity cases, opportunity of hearing remains the default rule unless pervasive fraud makes it impracticable.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Irregular Appointment: A valid post exists and the candidate is eligible, but some procedural rule (e.g., advertisement format) is not strictly followed.
Illegal Appointment: Appointment is void from the outset—either the post never existed, the appointee lacked qualifications, or fraud tainted the process.
Doctrine of Severability: A legal principle allowing courts to separate the “bad” part of a composite action from the “good”, preserving what is lawful.
No Work-No Pay: Salary is not granted for a period during which an employee did not actually perform duties, unless the Court directs otherwise.
Notional Seniority/Fixation: Treating an employee as if they had continued in service purely for calculating future benefits—without paying past wages.

5. Conclusion

Pawan Kumar Tiwary reinforces the Supreme Court’s insistence on fairness, proportionality, and factual precision in public-employment disputes:

Appointments to sanctioned vacancies cannot be nullified wholesale merely for procedural blemishes.
Courts and employers must adopt a “surgical” rather than “carpet-bomb” approach—separate the tainted from the untainted.
Natural-justice safeguards remain pivotal unless systemic fraud makes individual notice futile.
Relief must be calibrated—protect career-prospects and seniority, but avoid windfall back-pay where no work was done.

The judgment therefore deepens Indian service law’s commitment to equitable adjudication—punishing fraud without sacrificing innocent employees on the altar of administrative convenience.