Supreme Court: Curable Appointment Defects Cannot Nullify Entire Recruitment Process, Protects Employees After 10 Years of Service

The Supreme Court in Gaurav Mehla & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. has ruled that a curable procedural defect at the final stage of appointments cannot automatically invalidate an entire recruitment process if the selection was otherwise conducted fairly and transparently. The Court restored hope for seven employees whose appointments had been cancelled after more than a decade of service.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeal filed by the employees and set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision that had upheld the cancellation of their appointments. The employees had been appointed in 2014 as Clerk-cum-Salesmen and Peon-cum-Chowkidars in the Thanesar Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society, Kurukshetra.

The appointments were challenged on the ground that they violated Rule 3 of the Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003. The rule mandates the presence and concurrence of certain officials, including the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Inspector Cooperative Societies and District Manager of HAFED, during the meeting where appointment decisions are approved. These officials were absent from the Board meeting that cleared the appointments.

However, the Supreme Court noted that there were no allegations regarding flaws in the recruitment advertisement, eligibility of selected candidates, or any fraud, manipulation, favouritism or mala fide conduct during the interview process. The vacancies had been publicly advertised and candidates were selected through a recruitment process conducted under the applicable rules.

Drawing a distinction between defects affecting the integrity of recruitment and irregularities occurring at the appointment stage, the Court held that the absence of the prescribed officials did not make the entire recruitment exercise illegal. The Bench observed that the officials primarily had a supervisory role intended to ensure compliance with recruitment norms.

The Court explained that recruitment consists of three stages: advertisement of vacancies, selection of candidates and final appointment approval. While defects in the first two stages may invalidate the entire recruitment process, a defect in the third stage can be separated and corrected without disturbing the completed selection process.

Importantly, the Court accepted the employees’ argument that they should not suffer for procedural lapses committed by authorities, especially when they had no role in the irregularity and had already served for more than ten years.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed the cooperative society to convene a fresh Board meeting within one month in the presence of the required officials. The Board will reconsider the appointments but cannot reopen issues relating to advertisements or interviews. It may only verify qualifications, eligibility and whether the candidates were properly recommended through the selection process.

The Court further clarified that if the employees are reappointed, their previous service will be counted for all purposes. However, they will not receive salary arrears for the period after their removal in August 2025.