Void Appointments and the Limits of Regularisation: Jharkhand High Court Reaffirms “No Equality in Illegality”
W.P.(S) No. 3007 of 2022
By Navya Tiwari
In Saurabh Kumar Singh and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others (10 March 2026), the Jharkhand High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of lecturers’ appointments, holding that appointments made in violation of statutory requirements are void ab initio and incapable of being regularised merely due to continued service or payment of remuneration.
The petition was filed by lecturers appointed in 2016 at A.K. Singh College, Japla, who sought quashing of the cancellation order, release of salary, and directions for regularisation and continuation in service. The petitioners argued that they had been selected through a proper process and had discharged their duties for a considerable period. However, their salaries were subsequently withheld, and their appointments were cancelled on the ground that the Managing Committee responsible for the appointments lacked legal authority.
The respondents contended that the appointments were fundamentally illegal from inception. It was submitted that the advertisement had been issued by the Principal, who was not the competent authority; the posts were unsanctioned; no recommendation had been obtained from the Jharkhand Public Service Commission; and the petitioners did not meet the prescribed eligibility criteria under the applicable norms.
Justice Ananda Sen, upon examining the record, found that the entire selection process suffered from inherent illegality. The Court held that the process had been initiated by an incompetent authority and conducted in clear contravention of statutory provisions. It emphasised that mere continuation in service or payment of honorarium does not confer legitimacy upon an appointment that is void from the outset.
Reiterating the settled principle that “there can be no equality in illegality,” the Court relied on Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal (2010) 2 SCC 422. It further observed that the petitioners’ lack of requisite qualifications independently disentitled them from claiming any equitable relief.
Concluding that the appointments were void and created no enforceable rights in favour of the petitioners, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The decision reinforces the strict judicial stance against validating irregular public employment and underscores the primacy of statutory compliance in recruitment processes.
