The Supreme Court of India 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. The Court 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. [2026 LiveLaw (SC) 628]
Background of the Case
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 at the time of selection. While the Assistant Registrar was present during the initial stages of recruitment, he was absent during the final stage when actual appointments were made.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court found that the recruitment process as a whole was conducted fairly, and the absence of the Assistant Registrar only during the final stage was a curable irregularity. The Court emphasised that invalidating appointments on technical grounds, after the employees had worked for over ten years, would cause grave injustice to them.
The Court observed that courts must strike a balance between procedural compliance and substantive justice, especially when invalidating appointments would adversely affect individuals who had no role in the procedural lapse. The bench directed the cooperative society to reconsider the appointments in light of this ruling.
Legal Significance
This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural irregularities that are curable in nature should not be used to nullify substantive rights of employees. The ruling provides important guidance on how courts should evaluate recruitment challenges where procedural defects do not vitiate the entire process.
The decision is particularly significant for cooperative societies and public sector organizations in Haryana and beyond, as it sets a clear standard for distinguishing between irregularities that are merely procedural and those that go to the root of the appointment process.
Case: Gaurav Mehla & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. | Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 628 | Decided: June 2026 | Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
