The Supreme Court has ruled that a procedural irregularity at the final stage of a recruitment process cannot, by itself, invalidate appointments when the overall recruitment exercise was conducted fairly and transparently.

The Court consequently directed a Haryana cooperative society to reconsider the appointments of seven employees who had served for over a decade.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed an appeal filed by Gaurav Mehla and others, and set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that 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 for allegedly violating Rule 3 of the Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003. The rule mandates the presence and concurrence of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Inspector Cooperative Societies and the District Manager of HAFED during the meeting in which appointment decisions are approved.

It was undisputed that these officials were absent from the Board of Directors' meeting held on August 13, 2014, where the appointments were approved.

However, the Supreme Court noted that there were no allegations of any defect in the recruitment advertisement, selection of ineligible candidates, or fraud, manipulation or mala fides in the interview process. It observed that the vacancies had been publicly advertised and that the selection process had been carried out through interviews in accordance with the applicable rules.

Drawing a distinction between substantive flaws affecting the integrity of a recruitment exercise and procedural lapses occurring at the appointment stage, the Court held that the absence of the prescribed officials 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 explained that the role of these officials was primarily supervisory and intended to ensure compliance with recruitment norms, making their absence a curable defect rather than a fatal one.

The Court further observed that the recruitment process comprises three stages — advertisement of vacancies, conduct of the selection process and the final appointment decision. While defects in the first two stages may vitiate the entire recruitment exercise, irregularities confined to the third stage are severable and capable of being rectified.

The Bench also accepted the employees' argument that they should not suffer for lapses attributable to the authorities, especially when they had no role in the irregularity and had already rendered more than ten years of service.

Accordingly, the Court directed the cooperative society to convene a fresh meeting of its Board of Directors within one month, ensuring the presence of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society, Inspector Cooperative Society and District Manager, HAFED, to reconsider the appointments.

It clarified that the Board cannot reopen issues relating to the advertisement or interview process. Its examination must be limited to verifying whether the appointees possess the requisite qualifications, are free from any disqualification and had been duly recommended through the selection process.

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

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