The Supreme Court has ruled that courts and authorities must exercise caution before resorting to blanket cancellation of public appointments, stressing that innocent employees should not suffer for administrative lapses not attributable to them.
A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar delivered the verdict while setting aside a December 2021 Jharkhand High Court order that had annulled the appointments of three employees of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB). The High Court had struck down their appointments on the ground that they exceeded the sanctioned cadre strength.
The apex court held that the doctrine of severability—commonly applied in constitutional law—was equally relevant in service matters to safeguard deserving employees. “To uphold the division bench’s order would be to punish the innocent for faults not attributable to them. This would be a miscarriage of justice,” the bench observed.
It emphasised that the practice of indiscriminately declaring entire batches of appointments void “undermines not only the morale of sincere employees but also the credibility of public administration.”
The court noted that the appellants were duly qualified, appointed within sanctioned posts, and selected through a transparent process. At most, the appointments were irregular due to procedural deviations, but not illegal since no fraud or statutory violation was established.
The bench underscored that fairness, proportionality, and individual justice must remain at the heart of administrative law. “Justice demands separation, not erasure,” it said, directing that courts must distinguish between valid and flawed appointments rather than striking down all appointments en masse.
It clarified that appointments can only be deemed illegal if they breach statutory mandates, are made without sanctioned posts, or are tainted by fraud. Procedural lapses alone, the court held, do not justify wholesale cancellation.
Declaring the appellants’ appointments valid, the Supreme Court directed restoration of their service continuity and seniority with effect from April 2009, the date of their initial appointment. However, they will not be entitled to arrears of salary for the intervening period of unemployment.
To protect their future service rights, the bench ordered notional fixation of pay and consequential benefits such as increments and promotions, subject to applicable rules.
While clarifying that its observations should not be read as laying down an inflexible rule for all cases, the court mandated that in future disputes involving large-scale irregularities, authorities and courts must mandatorily explore segregation before cancelling appointments.
