Summary and Analysis of Pawan Kumar Tiwary and Others v Jharkhand State Electricity Board
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Name: Pawan Kumar Tiwary and Others v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board (Now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited) and Others
Citation: 2025 INSC 1000
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice J.K. Maheshwari
Date of Judgment: August 19, 2025
2. Related Laws and Legal Provisions
The judgment interprets and applies the following legal principles and precedents:
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India – Guaranteeing equality before law and equal opportunity in public employment.
Doctrine of Severability – Separating valid appointments from invalid ones in cases of mass recruitment.
Distinction between Irregular and Illegal Appointments – As laid down in Vikas Pratap Singh & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (2013) 14 SCC 494.
Principles of Natural Justice – Right to hearing before termination, as upheld in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.
Precedents on Service Jurisprudence – Including Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1, R.S. Garg v. State of U.P. (2006) 6 SCC 430, and State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh (2009) 5 SCC 65.
Back Wages and Notional Benefits – As per Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109 and Gowramma C. v. Hindustan Aeronautical Limited (2022) 11 SCC 794.
3. Basic Details of the Judgment
Appellants: Pawan Kumar Tiwary, Hemant Kumar Choubey, and Amar Kumar (employees of Jharkhand State Electricity Board).
Respondents: Jharkhand State Electricity Board (now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited).
Background: The appellants were appointed to Class III posts in 2009 through an internal recruitment process. Their appointments were later cancelled by the Board citing irregularities and excess appointments beyond sanctioned strength.
Lower Court Proceedings:
The Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court quashed the cancellation orders and directed fresh appointments without back wages.
The Division Bench reversed this decision, declaring the appointments illegal.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the Division Bench’s order.
4. Explanation of the Judgment
a. Factual Background
The appellants were initially appointed to Class IV posts in the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB) between 2004–2006. In 2008–2009, JSEB issued an internal advertisement for Class III posts. The appellants applied, qualified through a selection process, and were appointed as Routine Clerks and Lower Division Assistants in April 2009.
However, in May 2009, the Board stayed all internal appointments and later constituted an Enquiry Committee, which reported that the appointments were made beyond sanctioned strength and in violation of rules. Based on this, the Board cancelled the appointments in July 2010. The appellants challenged this before the High Court.
b. Key Legal Issues
Whether the appointments were illegal or merely irregular.
Whether the cancellation violated principles of natural justice.
Whether the appellants were entitled to back wages and service benefits.
c. Supreme Court’s Reasoning
Sanctioned Strength Not Exceeded: The Court found that the appointments of the appellants were within the sanctioned strength. For Routine Clerks, 11 posts were available against 22 vacancies, and for LDA, 5 posts were available against 51 vacancies. The Enquiry Report itself confirmed this.
No Fraud or Mala Fide: There was no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or personal wrongdoing by the appellants.
Irregular vs. Illegal Appointment: The Court reiterated the distinction – an appointment is irregular if there is a procedural lapse but the post is sanctioned and the candidate is eligible. It is illegal only if the post is unsanctioned or the candidate is ineligible. Here, the appointments were irregular, not illegal.
Violation of Natural Justice: The Board cancelled the appointments without issuing any show-cause notice or hearing the appellants, which is a clear violation of natural justice.
Doctrine of Severability Applied: The Court emphasized that even if some appointments in a batch are invalid, those that are lawful must be protected. The Board and the High Court failed to individually examine each case.
Relief Granted: The appellants’ appointments were restored with continuity of service and seniority from 2009, but without back wages for the period they were out of service. Notional fixation of pay and future benefits were allowed.
d. Precedents Relied Upon
Vikas Pratap Singh: Upheld that irregular appointments without employee fault should not be cancelled.
Umadevi (3): Stated that technical irregularities without illegality or fraud should not invalidate appointments.
Maneka Gandhi: Reinforced the right to hearing before any punitive action.
Jankiraman and Gowramma: Supported notional benefits even if back wages are denied.
e. Final Order
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the cancellation orders, and declared the appellants’ appointments valid. They were granted continuity in service and notional benefits but no back wages. The judgment is limited only to the three appellants.
5. Significance of the Judgment
This judgment reinforces the importance of:
Individual scrutiny in mass appointment cancellations.
Protecting employees from administrative errors they did not commit.
Upholding constitutional guarantees of fairness and equality in public employment.
Differentiating between curable irregularities and void illegal appointments.
The Court also cautioned against blanket cancellations and urged authorities and courts to apply the doctrine of severability in future cases.