Gaurav Mehla v. State of Haryana
Supreme Court of India, 11 June 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 641
The absence of the official members whose presence Rule 3 made compulsory at the Board meeting finalising appointments was a curable defect at the last stage of recruitment and did not void a process otherwise free of fundamental error.
Facts
The Thanesar Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society, Kurukshetra, with the Registrar's permission, advertised posts of Clerk-cum-Salesman and Peon-cum-Chowkidar in July 2014. After interviews, its Board of Directors approved the appellants' appointments on 13.08.2014, and they served from 2014. Two members of the Society complained to the Registrar under Section 27 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. In 2017 the Additional Registrar set aside the appointments, mainly because amended Rule 3 of the Service Rules, 2003 required the presence and concurrence of the Assistant Registrar, the Inspector and the District Manager, HAFED at the meeting deciding appointments, and none had attended; a breach of Rule 14(a) on medical certificates was also found. The Additional Chief Secretary dismissed the appeals. A Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the orders, giving only liberty to apply again with age relaxation. The appellants appealed.
Questions before the Court
- Is the requirement in amended Rule 3 of the Service Rules, 2003, that named official members be present and concur when appointments are decided, mandatory, and was it breached?
- Do the defects found in the recruitment amount to a substantive illegality making the appointments void, or are they curable procedural defects?
- Are the appellants, who served for over a decade without any allegation against their eligibility or conduct, entitled to relief?
What the Court held
- A public recruitment has three stages: advertisement, the selection process (here an interview under Rule 15), and the final decision of the appointing authority. A fundamental defect at the first two stages, such as inadequate publicity, fraud, manipulation or selection of ineligible candidates, goes to the root and can invalidate the recruitment.
- The posts were advertised in two newspapers with a 21 day window, and no fraud, manipulation or ineligibility was alleged about the interview. The only defect was at the final stage: the official members were absent from the Board meeting of 13.08.2014.
- The presence of the Assistant Registrar, Inspector and District Manager, HAFED under Rule 3 is salutary and supervisory: they check that the rules were followed. Even though it is compulsory, their absence does not make the appointments illegal or vitiate a recruitment otherwise free of fundamental defect.
- The third stage is severable and the defect is curable. The Board must reconvene with the official members present and decide afresh only the third stage: eligibility, disqualification, whether the appellants were the recommended candidates and whether more meritorious candidates were ignored. Advertisement and interview cannot be reopened.
- If found eligible and not disqualified, the appellants are to be re-appointed with past service counted for all purposes but without arrears of pay for the period out of service. The appeal was allowed and the High Court's judgment set aside.
Why it matters
The judgment separates fundamental defects in the advertisement and selection stages of public recruitment, which vitiate it, from defects at the final appointing stage, which can be cured by the appointing authority acting again. It treats a requirement made 'compulsory' by the rules as supervisory in purpose, so its breach did not void the appointments, and it protects long-serving employees who had no part in the authorities' lapse by remitting only the severable stage instead of annulling the whole recruitment.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“We are of the view that though the requirement of Rule 3 in making the presence of the official and their concurrence compulsory, it is for the salutary reason that these official members of the BOD would be the best persons to make the necessary scrutiny and verification of the recruitment process to ensure that the recruitment had taken place by conforming to all the relevant requirements under the Rules. Infraction of Rule 3 in our opinion thus, cannot render the entire recruitment process illegal which does not otherwise suffer from any fundamental error or defect.”
“Hence, in our opinion, even if the presence of these official members has been made compulsory in the meeting of BOD for finalising the appointments to the services in the cooperative society, their absence will not render the appointments illegal as their role is essentially supervisory in nature.”
“There can be no doubt that if the posts were not properly advertised, it would have prevented or denied eligible candidates from applying for the posts, in which event, it can be deemed to be a fundamental flaw in a public recruitment process being violative of Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution and such defect would certainly lead to invalidation of the recruitment process.”
“Even if there was any defect in the third phase, it will not necessarily vitiate the earlier two phases of the recruitment. The rectification of the third phase does not involve the candidates and can be done without affecting the earlier two phases and hence, if there be any defect in the third phase, the concerned BOD can review the same, as in our opinion such a defect is a curable one.”
Provisions interpreted
- Rule 3, Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003 (Haryana)
- Rule 15, Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003 (Haryana)
- Article 14, Constitution
Case and bench
- Parties
- Gaurav Mehla v. State of Haryana
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23061 of 2025)
- Decided
- 11 June 2026
- Bench
- Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court delivered by Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.