New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that a procedural defect at the final appointment stage of a recruitment process does not automatically vitiate the entire selection exercise.
Holding that the defect in the present case was confined to the final approval stage and was capable of being cured, the Court directed a Haryana cooperative society to reconvene its Board of Directors (BOD) meeting and reconsider the appointments of seven employees who had already served for more than a decade.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment while allowing appeals filed by employees of Thanesar Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd., Kurukshetra. The Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment and opened the way for their reappointment.
The dispute arose from a recruitment process initiated in 2014 for the posts of Clerk-cum-Salesman and Peon-cum-Chowkidar. After obtaining approval from the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the Society issued advertisements, conducted interviews, and made appointments through its Board of Directors.
The selected candidates joined service and continued to work for over ten years. No allegation of fraud, malpractice, favouritism, or lack of eligibility was ever made against them.
The appointments were subsequently challenged by two members of the Society under Section 27 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. They argued that Rule 3 of the applicable Service Rules required the presence and concurrence of three officials, namely the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies; Inspector, Cooperative Societies; and District Manager, HAFED, at the meeting where appointments were approved.
It was undisputed that all three officials were absent from the BOD meeting held on August 13, 2014.
The Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, set aside the appointments in 2017. The decision was affirmed in appeal by the Additional Chief Secretary, Cooperation Department. Thereafter, the employees’ writ petition was dismissed by the High Court in 2024, and their Letters Patent Appeal met the same fate in 2025. Their services were eventually terminated on August 19, 2025.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the recruitment process was valid and that the advertisement and interview stages had been properly conducted. They contended that the absence of the three officials was an institutional lapse for which the selected candidates could not be penalised.
The respondent-complainants, on the other hand, maintained that Rule 3 made the presence of the officials compulsory and that any appointment made in violation of the rule was void ab initio.
Examining the issue, the Court observed that the recruitment process consisted of three distinct stages: issuance of the advertisement, conduct of the selection process, and the final decision to make appointments.
The Bench found no defect in the first two stages. It noted that the advertisement had been published in two newspapers and that no authority had recorded any adverse finding regarding the recruitment notice. Likewise, there was no allegation of fraud, manipulation, or consideration of ineligible candidates during the interview process.
The Court held that the role of the three officials under Rule 3 was essentially supervisory. Their presence was intended to ensure compliance with recruitment rules and verify the eligibility of the selected candidates at the stage of final approval.
Accordingly, the Bench held that the absence of the officials did not render the entire recruitment process illegal. It characterised the violation of Rule 3 as a curable procedural defect confined to the third stage of recruitment.
Since the advertisement and interview stages had been validly completed, the defect could be remedied by convening a fresh BOD meeting with the mandatory officials present. The Court contrasted this with defects in the advertisement or interview stages, which would strike at the root of the recruitment process and affect its legality.
The Bench also considered the fact that the appellants had served continuously for more than ten years. This, it observed, weighed in favour of reconsideration rather than outright invalidation of their appointments.
In its operative directions, the Court directed the Society to convene a fresh BOD meeting within one month in the presence of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies; Inspector, Cooperative Societies; and District Manager, HAFED.
The Board was directed to reconsider only the final appointment stage and determine whether the appellants possessed the requisite qualifications, were free from disqualifications, and were among the candidates selected through the interview process. It was expressly barred from reopening the advertisement or interview stages.
The Court further directed that if the appellants are found to be eligible upon reconsideration, they shall be reappointed and their past service shall be counted for all purposes. However, they will not be entitled to arrears of salary for the period during which they remained out of service following the termination of their services on August 19, 2025.
Case Title: Gaurav Mehla & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2026 INSC 641
