New Delhi, Aug 20 (PTI) The Supreme Court has called for considering possibility of segregation before making "blanket" cancellations of appointments of public officials.
The apex court delivered its verdict on August 19 on the appeals challenging a December 2021 order of the Jharkhand High Court which set aside the appointments of three employees of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board.
It noted the high court's division bench had set aside the appellants' appointments on the basis that they were made beyond the sanctioned strength.
"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," it said and set aside the high court order.
The apex court said the doctrine of severability was not merely a tool of constitutional adjudication but a principle of fairness and in service law, it protects deserving employees from the fallout of administrative missteps not attributable to them.
A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar said there was an urgent need to discourage the mechanical application of cancellation orders affecting large groups of appointees without differentiation.
"A practice of indiscriminately declaring entire batches of appointments as void undermines not only the morale of sincere employees but also the credibility of the public administration," the bench said.
The bench said no contemporaneous record was shown that contradicts the sanctioned strength status at the time of appointments.
"The posts were sanctioned, the appellants were duly qualified, and the 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," it said.
The bench said courts must resist the tendency to issue blanket invalidations of entire batches of appointments merely on the basis of procedural infirmities that affect only a portion of the appointments.
It said the principles of fairness, proportionality and individual justice were foundational to administrative law and demand that a case-by-case analysis be undertaken before issuing sweeping orders of cancellation.
The bench said when appointments were questioned on grounds of irregularity, the inquiry must not end with detecting the infirmity but must proceed further to distinguish those whose appointments were unimpeachable.
"Justice demands separation, not erasure," it said.
The bench said an appointment might be irregular if it deviated from established procedure, but it crosses into the realm of illegality only where it violated statutory mandates, was made without the existence of a sanctioned post, or was tainted by fraud.
"This court deems it necessary to underscore that 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," it said.
The bench said courts must exercise heightened care and adopt a calibrated approach, especially in matters involving mass appointments.
The verdict further said the appellants fulfilled the eligibility conditions, were appointed through a transparent internal selection process, were within the sanctioned cadre strength and were not found guilty of any misconduct or fraud.
The top court held appointments of the appellants to be legal and valid.
"We are constrained to clarify that the observations made in the present case, particularly our invocation of the doctrine of severability and the imperative of individualised scrutiny, must not be construed as laying down an inflexible rule of universal application," it said.
The bench said while the appellants should be entitled to continuity in service and restoration of seniority with effect from the date of their initial appointment in April 2009, they shall not be entitled to arrears of salary for the period they were out of service.
It said to protect their future service rights, they shall be granted notional fixation of pay and other consequential benefits subject to applicable rules such as increments and promotion eligibility.