Gaurav Mehla & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court, in Gaurav Mehla & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors., 2026 INSC 641, considered whether appointments made through a publicly advertised and otherwise fair recruitment process could be invalidated solely because certain departmental officials were absent when the appointing authority formally approved the selections. The controversy concerned appointments made in 2014 to the posts of Clerk-cum-Salesman and Peon-cum-Chowkidar in the Thanesar Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd., Kurukshetra, governed by the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, the Haryana Cooperative Societies Rules, 1989, and the Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Limited Staff Service Rules, 2003. The Society had obtained permission from the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, to fill three Clerk-cum-Salesman posts and four Peon-cum-Chowkidar posts. Pursuant to that approval, advertisements were issued on 11 July 2014 in English and Hindi newspapers, followed by a corrigendum dated 30 July 2014. A selection subcommittee was constituted, interviews were conducted on 11 August 2014, and the Board of Directors approved the appointments through its resolution dated 13 August 2014. The selected employees joined their respective posts and continued working for more than ten years. The dispute arose when two members of the Society, Randhir Singh and Dharam Pal, challenged the recruitment under Section 27 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, alleging non-compliance with the applicable recruitment rules. The central allegation was that the appointment resolution had been adopted without the presence and concurrence of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the Inspector of Cooperative Societies and the District Manager of the Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (HAFED), as required by amended Rule 3 of the Service Rules, 2003. The case consequently raised the distinction between a fundamental defect invalidating recruitment and a procedural irregularity capable of subsequent correction.
The complainants raised several objections concerning the recruitment exercise. They alleged that the Society had exceeded its sanctioned staff strength, failed to comply with reservation requirements, issued an incomplete advertisement, manipulated the corrigendum, improperly constituted the selection body and hurriedly completed appointments while litigation was pending. They further contended that the selected employees had submitted medical fitness certificates from private MBBS-qualified doctors rather than the Civil Surgeon, contrary to Rule 14(a) of the Service Rules, 2003. Their principal objection, however, concerned amended Rule 3, which required the presence and concurrence of specified departmental officials at the meeting deciding appointments. The amendment had been communicated in January 2011 and adopted by the Society through Resolution No. 4 dated 1 April 2011. The Assistant Registrar had been on leave during the relevant period and had not attended the appointment meeting on 13 August 2014. The Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Stores), Haryana, accepted the challenge through an order dated 6 June 2017 and set aside the appointment resolution and consequential appointments. The employees and the Society challenged that decision through Appeal Nos. 28 and 30 of 2017, respectively, but the Additional Chief Secretary, Cooperation Department, Haryana, dismissed both appeals on 29 September 2017. The appellate authority held that the mandatory departmental officials had not participated in the appointment meeting, that the selection subcommittee proceedings could not substitute for the prescribed decision-making body, and that the medical certificate requirement had also been breached. The employees thereafter approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court through CWP No. 23148 of 2017, maintaining that the alleged irregularities arose entirely from the Society’s internal administration and that the candidates themselves had neither violated the recruitment rules nor committed any misconduct.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition on 22 April 2024. The Single Judge held that amended Rule 3 imposed a mandatory requirement concerning the composition and participation of officials in the appointment decision and that non-compliance rendered the appointments unsustainable. The Court distinguished Rule 35, which prescribed a general quorum of three members for meetings of the Managing Committee, from Rule 3, which specifically governed decisions relating to appointments. Applying the principle that a specific provision prevails over a general provision, the Single Judge held that satisfaction of the ordinary quorum requirement could not overcome the absence of the designated departmental officials. The Court considered the deficiency in medical certificates potentially curable but treated the Rule 3 violation as fatal. It also rejected the employees’ reliance on their lengthy service, observing that continuation under interim judicial protection could not independently validate appointments contrary to mandatory recruitment provisions. The employees challenged this decision through LPA No. 1259 of 2024. By judgment dated 29 July 2025, the Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s conclusion that the appointments had not been approved by the competent body in the manner required by the Service Rules. It held that recommendations by the subcommittee and subsequent approval by the Board could not override statutory recruitment requirements. Nevertheless, recognising that the employees had crossed the prescribed upper age limit during the prolonged litigation, the Division Bench permitted them to participate in future recruitment with appropriate age relaxation. Dissatisfied with that limited relief, the employees approached the Supreme Court under the principles governing judicial review of recruitment cancellation and public employment, seeking restoration of their appointments rather than a fresh opportunity to compete for the same posts.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants submitted that the recruitment had been initiated with the competent Registrar’s approval, publicly advertised and completed through interviews conducted in accordance with the applicable procedure. They emphasised that there was no established allegation that any appellant lacked the required educational qualifications, experience, age eligibility or other essential conditions. No unsuccessful candidate had challenged the interview process on grounds of fraud, manipulation, impersonation or favouritism. According to the appellants, the alleged defect concerned only the absence of designated officials at the final Board meeting, over which the selected candidates had no control. They relied on Rule 35 of the Service Rules, 2003, which prescribed a quorum of three members, and Section 36 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, which protected acts of cooperative societies from invalidation merely because of specified defects in procedure, committee constitution or office-holding. They contended that these provisions demonstrated legislative recognition of curable institutional irregularities. They also invoked fairness, proportionality and the hardship arising from more than a decade of service followed by removal. Reliance was placed on State of U.P. v. Johri Mai and Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Kaila Devi in support of the argument that innocent candidates should not automatically suffer for administrative lapses attributable to recruiting authorities. Conversely, the complainants and State authorities maintained that Rule 3 was mandatory and that appointments made without the prescribed officials were void from inception. They also relied on the decision in Ramjit Singh Kardam v. Sanjeev Kumar, (2020) 20 SCC 209, to argue that equity could not sustain appointments made in violation of statutory recruitment rules. The Society itself supported the employees and maintained that the recruitment was transparent and merit-based.
Examining the statutory framework, the Supreme Court considered Rules 3, 4, 7, 14(a), 15 and 35 of the Service Rules, 2003, together with Sections 27 and 36 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. The Court observed that public recruitment ordinarily involves three distinct stages: first, notification of vacancies and invitation of applications from eligible candidates; second, evaluation and selection through the prescribed recruitment method; and third, the formal appointment decision by the competent authority. These stages must be examined separately when determining whether an irregularity invalidates the entire process. Regarding the first stage, the Court found that the Society had published advertisements in two newspapers, The Indian Express and Aaj Samaj, on 11 July 2014. Although the complainants alleged that the advertisement did not specify the last date for submitting applications, the Court noted that it expressly allowed applications within 21 days, thereby making the deadline ascertainable. The objection that the advertisement appeared in the Delhi edition of The Indian Express was also rejected because there was no evidence that the publication had not circulated in Haryana or that eligible candidates were deprived of an opportunity to apply. Regarding the second stage, the Court observed that the Service Rules contemplated selection through interviews and that no fundamental irregularity had been established in their conduct. There was no finding that unqualified or disqualified candidates were selected, that academic records or professional experience were improperly disregarded, or that the interviews involved fraud, manipulation or other vitiating conduct. The Supreme Court therefore concluded that the advertisement and selection stages were not affected by defects going to the root of recruitment. The remaining controversy concerned the final appointment resolution passed without the designated departmental officials.
On the interpretation of amended Rule 3, the Supreme Court accepted that the provision made the presence and concurrence of the Assistant Registrar, Inspector of Cooperative Societies and District Manager, HAFED compulsory when the Board decided appointments. However, the Court examined the purpose of this requirement rather than treating every breach as necessarily destructive of the entire recruitment process. It reasoned that the participation of these non-elected departmental officials served an important supervisory function. Their presence enabled verification that vacancies had been properly advertised, interviews conducted according to the rules, candidates assessed on the prescribed criteria and only eligible persons recommended for appointment. The officials were expected to assist the elected members of the Board, who might not possess equivalent expertise in service administration or recruitment regulations. The Court held that although Rule 3 imposed a compulsory requirement, the absence of these officials at the final decision-making stage did not automatically invalidate an otherwise lawful advertisement and selection process. The defect was confined to the third stage and was capable of correction by reconvening the Board meeting with the required officials present. The Court distinguished such a procedural deficiency from fundamental defects involving inadequate public notification, denial of equal opportunity, fraudulent interviews, manipulation of results or appointment of ineligible candidates. Those defects could invalidate recruitment because they directly affected its fairness and integrity. In contrast, the present irregularity could be corrected without reopening the earlier stages. The Court also considered that the appellants had served for more than ten years and that no wrongdoing had been attributed to them personally. It concluded that employees should not be made to suffer the consequences of an institutional omission when the essential recruitment stages were otherwise unaffected. Accordingly, the Supreme Court treated the Rule 3 violation as curable rather than fatal, while preserving the compulsory nature of the officials’ participation in the fresh appointment decision.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court Division Bench judgment dated 29 July 2025 in LPA No. 1259 of 2024 and directed the respondent Cooperative Society to reconvene a meeting of its Board of Directors within one month. The Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Inspector of Cooperative Societies and District Manager, HAFED, were required to participate in that meeting to reconsider the recommendations already made by the selection committee. The Court expressly restricted the scope of reconsideration to the third stage of recruitment. The Board was prohibited from reopening the adequacy of the original advertisements or the fairness of the interviews because those stages had not been found fundamentally defective. It could, however, verify whether the appellants possessed the essential qualifications, were free from disqualification, had actually been recommended on the basis of the interviews and had not been preferred over eligible and more meritorious candidates who were improperly ignored. The Court recorded that the appellants had been removed from service on 19 August 2025. It directed that if the reconvened Board found them eligible and otherwise qualified for appointment, they should be reappointed to their respective posts. Their past service would count for all purposes, but they would not be entitled to arrears of salary or allowances for the period during which they remained out of service. The appeal was accordingly allowed, with parties directed to bear their own costs. The ruling clarifies that even where a recruitment rule imposes a compulsory procedural requirement, courts must examine the nature, purpose and consequences of its breach before invalidating an entire selection. A defect confined to the formal appointment stage may be cured without disturbing an otherwise fair and transparent recruitment exercise. At the same time, the judgment does not authorise regularisation of fraudulent selections, appointment of ineligible candidates or disregard of substantive recruitment requirements. Its protection is confined to the circumstances of a substantially valid selection process in which the identified institutional defect is severable and capable of rectification.
Cases Discussed
- State of U.P. v. Johri Mai, (2004) 4 SCC (citation incomplete in the supplied judgment). Relied upon by the appellants for the proposition that candidates should not be penalised for administrative lapses attributable to the recruiting authorities. The Supreme Court recorded the reliance but did not undertake a separate detailed analysis of this precedent.
- Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Kaila Devi, (2018) 12 SCC 101 (Supreme Court). Cited by the appellants in support of their contention that technical or procedural defects not attributable to selected candidates may be capable of correction. The judgment records this submission without separately analysing the decision.
- Ramjit Singh Kardam v. Sanjeev Kumar, (2020) 20 SCC 209 (Supreme Court). Relied upon by the complainant-respondents to contend that equitable considerations cannot validate appointments made in violation of statutory recruitment requirements. The Supreme Court recorded the respondents’ reliance but distinguished, through its own analysis, between fundamental recruitment illegality and a curable defect confined to the final appointment stage.
