The Supreme Court has held that a procedural irregularity at the final stage of a recruitment process cannot, by itself, invalidate appointments if the recruitment was otherwise conducted in a fair and transparent manner. The Court accordingly 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, setting 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 meetings where appointment decisions are taken.

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 defects in the recruitment advertisement, selection of ineligible candidates, or fraud, manipulation or mala fides in the interview process. The vacancies had been publicly advertised and the recruitment exercise was conducted in accordance with the applicable rules.

Drawing a distinction between defects that affect the integrity of a recruitment process and procedural lapses occurring at the final appointment stage, the Court held that the absence of the prescribed officials did not render the entire recruitment exercise 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 under Rule 3, would not invalidate the entire recruitment process,” the Court observed.

The Bench explained that the role of these officials was supervisory in nature and intended to ensure compliance with recruitment norms. Their absence, therefore, constituted a curable defect rather than a fatal flaw.

The Court further observed that a recruitment process can broadly be divided into three stages: issuance of the advertisement, conduct of the selection process and the final appointment decision. While defects in the first two stages may vitiate the entire process, irregularities at the third stage can be separated and rectified.

Accepting the employees' argument that they should not suffer for lapses attributable to authorities, especially after having served for more than ten years, the Court granted relief.

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

The Court clarified that the Board cannot reopen issues relating to the recruitment advertisement or interview process. It may only examine whether the appointees possessed the required qualifications, were free from disqualifications and had been duly recommended through the selection process.

The Bench also ordered that if the employees are found eligible and 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.