Summary
The Supreme Court restored the appointments of three Class-IV employees of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board who had been selected for Class-III posts through an internal process and whose appointments were cancelled en masse, along with hundreds of others, on the ground that they exceeded sanctioned strength. The Court held that the appellants' appointments were within the sanctioned quota (as the Board's counsel conceded), that procedural lapses not attributable to appointees render appointments irregular rather than illegal, and that the doctrine of severability and individualised scrutiny required untainted appointments to be preserved. The appellants were granted continuity of service and notional benefits but no back wages.
Issues
- Whether the Division Bench's finding that the appellants' appointments to Class-III posts were illegal as being beyond sanctioned strength warranted interference.
- Whether irregular appointments could be treated as illegal and cancelled en masse without individual scrutiny and without an opportunity of hearing.
- If the appointments were legal, what consequential benefits (seniority, back wages, notional fixation) the appellants were entitled to.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of IndiaThe right to employment, though not a fundamental right, is protected under Articles 14 and 16 insofar as they require fair, just and non-arbitrary treatment of similarly situated persons. Cancellation without a show cause or hearing violated natural justice, and the doctrine of severability must be invoked to uphold the guarantee of equal treatment when untainted appointments are threatened with en masse cancellation. (¶¶ 30, 43)
Held
- The conclusion that the appellants were appointed beyond sanctioned strength was factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. The Enquiry Report itself recorded that Routine Clerk appointments were within the 50% internal quota (11 of the 22 vacant sanctioned posts), the Lower Division Assistant cadre had 51 vacancies with a 10% quota allowing at least five appointments approved by the competent authority, and the Board's counsel fairly conceded during the hearing that the appellants' appointments fell within sanctioned strength. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 29)
- Procedural irregularities vitiate a selection only if shown to be mala fide or to substantially affect fairness. Where the selection was conducted through tests and interviews overseen by a selection committee and culminated in formal appointment letters, mere technical irregularities, absent illegality, arbitrariness or fraud, cannot be a ground to undo appointments, especially when the appointees are not at fault. (¶ 22)
- An irregular appointment is one where procedure is not strictly followed but the appointee is qualified and the post is sanctioned; an illegal appointment is void ab initio, as where the appointee is ineligible, the post does not exist, a statutory mandate is violated or fraud taints it. The Division Bench blurred this distinction; the appellants' appointments, made to sanctioned posts by a competent authority after a selection process, were at worst irregular, not illegal. (¶¶ 23, 31, 34, 35)
- The validity of an individual appointment must be assessed on the appointee's own merit, eligibility and conformity to the rules; courts must resist blanket invalidation of entire batches for infirmities affecting only some. The doctrine of severability, a principle of fairness, requires that where bad can be separated from good the good must not perish with the bad, and the inquiry must consider whether the appointee had any role in or knowledge of the deviation. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
- 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, and (iv) provide an opportunity of hearing before cancellation. Cancelling the appellants' appointments en masse without a hearing and without examining each appointment violated natural justice and amounted to an abdication of the duty to make reasoned, individualised decisions. In future cases of large-scale irregularities, segregation and the doctrine of severability must be considered before cancellation. (¶¶ 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 49)
- The principles in State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya permit cancellation of an entire selection where systemic fraud or malaise irredeemably vitiates it. Where there is no allegation or proof of fraud, impersonation or collusion, the process was conducted through a structured examination against sanctioned vacancies, and individual appointments are legally sustainable, the court must lean in favour of preservation, not obliteration. These observations do not lay down an inflexible rule of universal application. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42, 43, 44)
- Back wages are not ordinarily granted for a period in which no service was rendered. The appellants were entitled to continuity of service and restoration of seniority from their initial appointment on 24.04.2009, with notional fixation of pay and consequential benefits such as increments, promotion eligibility and pensionary benefits, but not to arrears of salary for the period they were out of service. (¶¶ 45, 46, 47)
- The findings were confined to the three appellants and did not apply to any other appointee; applicants seeking impleadment were not necessary parties and were left free to pursue their own remedies, with no opinion expressed on their rights. (¶¶ 17, 48, 51)
Result
Appeals allowed; Division Bench orders dated 22.12.2021 and review orders dated 07.08.2023 set aside to the extent they relate to the appellants; Office Orders dated 07.05.2009 and 22.07.2010 quashed insofar as they concern the appellants; appointments made by Office Orders 758 and 759 dated 24.04.2009 declared legal and valid; continuity of service, seniority and notional pay fixation granted without back wages; impleadment application dismissed; no order as to costs.