The Baishakhi Principle | The Last Word

The jurisprudential divide between irregular and illegal appointments is neither artificial nor academic Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 held, mere technical irregularities in appointment processes, in absence of evidence of illegality, arbitrariness or fraud, cannot be a ground to undo appointments, especially when appointees are not at fault. Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2013) 14 SCC 494 held, an appointment made without following every procedural formality may be irregular, but it does not become illegal unless it violates statutory provisions or is made without existence of a post. If appointee was otherwise eligible, qualified and appointed against a sanctioned vacancy, there is no justification for nullifying such appointment [State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh (2009) 5 SCC 65].

Doctrine of Severability has gained considerable traction where a set of appointments are sought to be invalidated en masse. Where bad can be separated from good, the good must not perish with the bad. When appointments are questioned on grounds of irregularity, inquiry must not end with detecting infirmity but must proceed further to distinguish those whose appointments are unimpeachable. Justice demands separation, not erasure.

The Baishakhi Principle rightly recognizes, where recruitment process is irredeemably marred by pervasive fraud or institutional malaise, Court may be compelled albeit reluctantly to nullify entire selection process [State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee), (2025) SCC OnLine SC 719]. However, case at hand stands on a demonstrably different factual and legal footing. In absence of demonstrable malaise and where individual appointments are legally sustainable, we must lean in favour of preservation, not obliteration.

– Hon’ble Justice Aravind Kumar, Pawan Kumar Tiwary v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26860-26863 of 2023].