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.

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 628

Click here to read the judgment