Curable Irregularity In Final Appointment Process Cannot Invalidate Entire Recruitment : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a procedural defect in the final stage of a recruitment process cannot automatically invalidate appointments where the recruitment itself was otherwise conducted fairly and transparently, and directed a Haryana cooperative society to reconsider the appointments of seven employees who had served for more than a decade.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeal filed by Gaurav Mehla and others, setting aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment which had upheld the cancellation of their appointments as Clerk-cum-Salesmen and Peon-cum-Chowkidars in the Thanesar Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society, Kurukshetra.

The appointments, made in 2014, were challenged by members of the cooperative society on the ground that they violated Rule 3 of the Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003. The Rule requires the presence and concurrence of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Inspector Cooperative Societies and District Manager of HAFED in the meeting where appointment decisions are taken. The officials were admittedly absent from the Board of Directors' meeting held on August 13, 2014, which approved the appointments.

The Court observed that there was no allegation that the recruitment advertisement was defective, that ineligible candidates had been selected, or that the interview process was tainted by fraud, manipulation or mala fides. It noted that the posts had been publicly advertised and the selection process had been conducted through interviews in accordance with the applicable rules.

Drawing a distinction between fundamental defects affecting the integrity of a recruitment process and procedural irregularities occurring at the stage of appointment, the Court held that the absence of the prescribed officials from the Board meeting did not render the entire recruitment process illegal.

"The said deficiency i.e., absence of the Inspector of Cooperative Societies, Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies and the District Manager of HAFED whose presence is stated to be compulsory as per Rule 3 would not invalidate the entire recruitment process," the Court held.

The Bench reasoned that the role of these officials was essentially supervisory, intended to ensure compliance with recruitment rules, and that their absence constituted a curable defect. It held that the recruitment process could be viewed in three stages: advertisement of vacancies, conduct of the selection process, and the final appointment decision. While a defect in the first two stages could vitiate the recruitment itself, a defect in the third stage was severable and capable of rectification.

The Court also accepted the employees' contention that they could not be penalised for lapses attributable to authorities, particularly when they had no role in the alleged irregularity and had rendered over ten years of service.

Accordingly, the Court directed the cooperative society to reconvene a meeting of the Board of Directors within one month, with the presence of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society, Inspector Cooperative Society and District Manager, HAFED, to reconsider the appointments. However, it clarified that the Board could not reopen issues relating to the advertisement or interview process, and could only examine whether the appointees possessed the requisite qualifications, did not suffer from any disqualification, and had been duly recommended through the selection process.

The Bench further directed that if the employees are found eligible and are reappointed after reconsideration, their past service shall be counted for all purposes. However, they will not be entitled to arrears of salary for the period they remained out of service after their removal in August 2025.

Headnote

Service Law – Direct Recruitment – Recruitment Procedure – Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Limited Staff Service Rules, 2003 – Rule 3, Rule 14(a) & Rule 15 – Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 – Section 36 – Validity of appointments challenged on the ground of non-compliance with amended Rule 3 due to the absence and lack of concurrence of the mandatory official members (Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Inspector Cooperative Societies, and District Manager, HAFED) in the Board of Directors (BOD) meeting finalizing the appointments – Held, that a public recruitment process can be split into three distinct stages: (i) notification/advertisement, (ii) method of selection (interview/written test), and (iii) final appointment by the competent authority - If the first two stages do not suffer from any fundamental defects (such as lack of publicity, fraud, manipulation, or appointment of unqualified candidates), the entire recruitment process cannot be rendered void ab initio due to a procedural loophole at the third stage - The requirement under Rule 3 regarding the presence and concurrence of non-elected official members is supervisory and salutary in nature, designed to ensure cross-checking and adherence to norms - The absence of such officials constitutes a curable procedural irregularity, not a fatal illegality going to the root of the selection - Candidates who entered service in good faith through an advertised, merit-based process cannot be made to suffer for institutional lapses or procedural omissions committed by the authorities - The third stage of the recruitment process is severable from the first two - The defect is rectifiable by directing the Cooperative Society to reconvene the BOD meeting in strict compliance with Rule 3 to re-examine the qualifications and recommendations of the selected candidates, without reopening the validly concluded initial phases of advertisement and interview - Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside and appeal allowed with directions. [Paras 20-22, 40-52, 60-64]

Vested Rights & Equity – Long Unblemished Service – Vitiation Ex Post Facto - Equity & Proportionality – Appellants rendered more than a decade of continuous, unblemished service from 2014 onwards without any personal allegations of fraud, malpractice, or lack of eligibility – High Court invalidated appointments after 10 years based on internal procedural non-compliance – Supreme Court held that it is highly inequitable to deprive employees of their livelihood after long years of service due to institutional lapses over which they exercised no control - The interest of justice is served by treating the defect as curable and reviewing the third stage rather than directing a total invalidation of the recruitment process. [Relied on State of U.P. v. Johri Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 714; disctinguished from Ramjit Singh Kardam v. Sanjeev Kumar, (2020) 20 SCC 209; Paras 49-62]

Case: Gaurav Mehla & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 628

Click here to read the judgment