Supreme Court: In an appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which affirmed the Single Judge’s decision and declined to interfere with the administrative and quasi-judicial orders invalidating the appointments of 7 employees made by a Haryana Cooperative Society on account of procedural irregularities in the recruitment process, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh*, JJ. held that on compliance with Rule 3, Service Rules, 2003 relating to the presence and concurrence of specified officials in the Board of Directors (BOD) meeting approving appointments constitutes a curable procedural irregularity and not a substantive illegality. Where the advertisement and selection process are otherwise fair, transparent, and free from infirmity, such a defect does not render the entire recruitment process void ab initio. Further, the Court directed the Haryana Cooperative Society to reconsider the appointments of the employees through a duly constituted BOD, in compliance with the applicable statutory rules.
Background
The appellants were appointed in 2014 as Clerk-cum-Salesman and Peon-cum-Chowkidar in a cooperative society in Haryana pursuant to a recruitment process involving public advertisement, interview-based selection, and approval by the BOD.
Their appointments were subsequently challenged on the ground that the recruitment process violated Rule 3, Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003, as amended, which required the presence and concurrence of the Assistant Registrar, Inspector Cooperative Societies, and District Manager, Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (HAFED) in the meeting where appointments were approved.
The Additional Registrar, the State authorities, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the requirement under Rule 3 was mandatory and declared the appointments illegal. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
Issues
1. Whether amended Rule 3, Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003, which mandates the presence and concurrence of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Inspector Cooperative Societies and District Manager, HAFED in meetings relating to appointments, is mandatory in nature or merely directory;
2. Whether the recruitment and appointments made pursuant to the Resolution dated 13 August 2014 were in contravention of the mandatory requirements prescribed under Rule 3 and other provisions of the Service Rules, 2003;
3. Whether the alleged defects and irregularities pointed out in the recruitment process constitute substantive illegality going to the root of the appointments so as to render the same void ab initio, or whether such defects are merely procedural and curable in nature;
4. Whether Rule 35, Service Rules, 2003 and Section 36, Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 could be invoked to sustain the appointments notwithstanding alleged non-compliance with Rule 3;
5. Whether the appellants, having rendered more than a decade of continuous service without any allegation regarding their eligibility, conduct or integrity, are entitled to equitable protection on the principles of proportionality, fairness and legitimate expectation;
6. Whether the judgments rendered by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, affirming the orders passed by the statutory authorities rescinding the appointments of the appellants, warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis
The Court observed that although the cooperative society is not a private body, its recruitment process is governed by statutory provisions and must satisfy the fundamental requirements applicable to public employment, namely:
1. proper advertisement of vacancies;
2. a fair and transparent selection process; and
3. appointment by the competent authority.
The Court divided the recruitment process into three stages:
1. Advertisement of vacancies;
2. Selection through interviews; and
3.Final approval and appointment by the Board of Directors.
Upon examining the record, the Court found no infirmity in the first 2 stages. The vacancies had been duly advertised in newspapers; eligible candidates were afforded equal opportunity to apply, and there were no allegations of fraud, manipulation, mala fides, favouritism, or appointment of ineligible candidates. The interview process was also not shown to be defective or contrary to Rule 15, Service Rules.
The challenge was confined to the third stage, namely, the approval of appointments by the BOD. The Court noted that Rule 3 mandates the presence and concurrence of the Assistant Registrar, Inspector Cooperative Societies, and District Manager (HAFED) in meetings concerning appointments. However, the role of these officials was held to be essentially supervisory and intended to ensure compliance with recruitment norms.
The Court held that while Rule 3 employs mandatory language, the absence of the specified officials at the approval stage did not affect the validity of the advertisement process or the fairness of the selection process. Such non-compliance did not constitute a defect going to the root of the recruitment.
Distinguishing between fundamental illegality and procedural irregularity, the Court held that defects such as absence of advertisement, denial of equal opportunity, consideration of ineligible candidates, or a recruitment process tainted by fraud would invalidate appointments. In contrast, the absence of the prescribed officials from the BOD meeting constituted a procedural lapse that was curable in nature.
The Court further held that the defect was confined to the third stage of recruitment and was severable from the earlier stages. Since the successful candidates had no role in the procedural lapse and had served for more than a decade, they could not be made to suffer for an irregularity attributable to the authorities.
“We are of the view that the third stage of the recruitment process is severable and can be separated from the early two phases without affecting the validity of the earlier two stages. Even if there was any defect in the third phase, it will not necessarily vitiate the earlier two phases of the recruitment.”
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the orders passed by the authorities under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984.
The Court directed the cooperative society to reconvene a meeting of the BOD with the presence of the Assistant Registrar, Inspector Cooperative Societies, and District Manager (HAFED) to reconsider the appointments.
The Court clarified that only the third stage of recruitment could be revisited. The validity of the advertisement and interview process could not be reopened.
It was further directed that if, upon reconsideration, the appellants were found eligible and not disqualified, they would be reappointed with continuity of service for all purposes. However, they would not be entitled to back wages for the period they remained out of service.
[Gaurav Mehla v. State of Haryana, — 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1107, decided on 11-6-2026]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Shrey Kapoor, AOR
For Respondent(s): Dr. Hemant Gupta, A.A.G. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Ms. Payal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rony John, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Nitikaa Guptha, Adv. Mr. Akash Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Sachin Gupta, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Bansal, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Sethi, Adv. Ms. Subasini Sethy, Adv. Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, AOR Mr. Sachin Jain, Adv. Mr. Vishal, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR
