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 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 scrutiny – Duty of Courts, authorities – Factors to be considered, enumerated:
Held: An irregular appointment is one where procedure is not strictly followed but the appointee is otherwise qualified and the post is sanctioned – An illegal appointment, on the other hand, is void ab initio, such as where the appointee is ineligible or the post does not exist – 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 – An appointment may be irregular if it deviates from established procedure, but it crosses into the realm of illegality only where it violates statutory mandates, is made without the existence of a sanctioned post, or is tainted by fraud – Mechanical application of cancellation orders affecting large groups of appointees without differentiation, discouraged – In all future cases of large-scale appointment irregularities, authorities and courts must mandatorily consider the possibility of segregation and apply the doctrine of severability before taking the extreme step of cancellation – To mechanically apply the drastic remedy of en masse cancellation where the appointments are otherwise regular, fall within the sanctioned strength, and are untainted by illegality, would be to conflate irregularity with illegality, and to punish the innocent for administrative lapses they neither caused nor participated in – Doctrines. [Paras 31, 32, 35-37, 43] Service Law – Doctrine of severability – Invocation of, when not warranted:
Held: Invocation of the doctrine of severability and the imperative of individualized scrutiny in the present case, must not be construed as laying down an inflexible rule of universal application – Cautionary principles articulated by this Court in Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) case 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 such cases, exception to the principle of natural justice would not lead to potential injustice to untainted candidates and the necessity of maintaining public confidence in institutional processes ought to take precedence. [Paras 40, 41, 43]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.