2025:JHHC:31797 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5566 of 2019 Jharkhand Rajya Bijli Kamgar Union, Through its General Secretary, Sri Ram Krishna Singh, aged about 73 years, Son of Late Jagat Singh, having its Head Office at Vidyut Board Colony, P.O., P.S. and District-Dhanbad. ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The Jharkhand State Electricity Board, now Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd. through its CMD, Engineering Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi- 834004. 2. The General Manager (P & GA) Jharkhand State Electricity Board, now Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd., Engineering Building, H.Е.С., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi-834004. 3. Dy. General Manager (P), Jharkhand State Electricity Board, now Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd., Engineering Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi- 834004 ... … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. K. Laik, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate -------- Order No.12 /Dated: 14th October 2025 The instant writ application has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “1. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction from this Hon'ble court in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondents to implement the Office Order issued by Director Personnel, J.S.E.B., dated 24.4.2009 being Office Orders no. 760 and 761 , dated 27.4.2009 being Office Orders no. 781 and 782 by which approximately 454 persons were appointed on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk, Lower Division Assistants, Meter Reader and Routine Clerks, but subsequently by an Office Order dated 7.5.2009 issued by Secretary, J.S.E.B., the same was stayed and thereafter by Office Orders dated 27.10.09 and 22.7.2010 issued by Joint Secretary, JSEB, the same has been cancelled. AND For further direction to post those selected persons on their respective posts with immediate effect. AND any other appropriate writ(s)/ Order(s)/Direction(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.” 2. It has been informed by learned counsel for the rival parties that similarly situated persons for the similar relief have preferred writ application which was decided in their favour in W.P.(S) No. 1248 of 2010 2025:JHHC:31797 2 and W.P.(S) No.1269 of 2010. Thereafter, the State preferred LPA No. 512 of 2018 with LPA No. 647 of 2018 which was decided in favour of the State. Thereafter, few of the petitioners moved before the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Pawan Kumar Tiwary & Ors. v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board (Now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited) & Ors.” 1 and the same was decided in favour of those Petitioners and the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at paragraph nos. 32, 47 to 50 and 51 as under: 32. The High Court failed to apply the test of individual scrutiny, which is now a bedrock requirement in service jurisprudence. 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 (iv) Provide an opportunity of hearing before cancellation 47. Thus, the appellants shall be deemed to have continued in service from the date of their original appointments for the purpose of seniority, promotion, and pensionary benefits, but shall not be entitled to actual back wages for the intervening period. Their pay shall be notionally fixed as per rules, and future emoluments shall be computed accordingly. 48. At the cost of repetition, we reiterate that our findings and observations made herein above are limited and confined to the appellants only and it does not apply to none else of these proceedings. 49. We reiterate for future guidance that where multiple appointments are challenged on general grounds, authorities and courts must undertake a detailed fact-specific analysis before concluding that all such appointments are void. The doctrine of severability must not remain a mere theoretical doctrine but must guide real administrative action and judicial reasoning in service matters. 50. In consequence to the above discussion, the appeals stand allowed and the appointments of the appellants made by Office Order Nos. 758 and 759 dated 24.04.2009 are declared to be legal and valid by quashing the Office Order No. 860 dated 7.05.2009 and the Office Order No. 881 dated 22.07.2010 insofar as appellants are concerned. In the light of the facts of this case, we make no order as to costs. 51. We have also considered I.A. No. 184914 of 2024 seeking impleadment. The lis before us is confined to the appellants, namely, Pawan Kumar Tiwary, Hemant Kumar Choubey and Amar Kumar, whose appointments have been examined in detail above and found sustainable only because they were within the sanctioned strength. The scope of these appeals is thus case-specific and limited to them alone. The applicants in the present I.A. are not necessary parties for the adjudication of the issues arising here, and their rights, if any, are not concluded by this judgment. They are at liberty to pursue the remedies available to them in accordance with law and no opinion is expressed in that regard. Accordingly, the I.A. stands dismissed. 3. Now, learned counsel for the petitioner-Union confines his prayer to the extent that similar relief may be granted to the Petitioner who 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1751 2025:JHHC:31797 3 are also having same set of facts and circumstances. 4. The case was listed yesterday and learned counsel for the respondent-Board was asked to seek instructions as to whether the Board would be willing to decide the individual cases at least the petitioner in this case. 5. Today, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the individual affected person may approach before the 2nd Respondent along with factual details and the judgment to be relied upon by them. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this writ application is disposed of by directing the petitioner-Union to approach the 2nd Respondent by filing fresh representation of individual cases. The moment 2nd Respondent receives the representation of the petitioner-Union, it shall delve into the matter and since earlier the issue went up till the Hon’ble Apex Court as such the 2nd Respondent shall also give hearing to the representative of the Union and take a decision in the matter in the light of order passed in the case of “Pawan Kumar Tiwary” (supra). 7. Since the matter is very old as such the 2nd Respondent shall pass an appropriate order within a period of four months from the date of filing of representation by the petitioner-Union. 8. It goes without saying that this Court has not gone into merit of the case. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending I.As, if any, also stand disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 14th October 2025 Amit Uploaded on 06/11/2025