The Supreme Court has emphasised that where a public recruitment process substantially satisfies the foundational requirements of legality, namely public advertisement, fair selection, and absence of fraud, mala fides, or appointment of ineligible candidates, a defect arising only at the final stage of formal approval by the appointing body, due to absence of officials whose presence is compulsory under the governing rules, does not necessarily vitiate the entire recruitment process.
In such circumstances, the Court held that the infraction is a curable irregularity at a severable stage of recruitment, particularly where the defect is attributable to the authorities and not to the selected candidates. Accordingly, Rule 3 of the Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003, though couched in mandatory terms, was treated in its application here as requiring corrective reconsideration at the appointment stage rather than wholesale invalidation of the completed recruitment process.
The Apex Court therefore set aside the High Court’s judgment dated July 29, 2025, and directed the respondent cooperative society to reconvene a meeting of the Board of Directors within one month to reconsider the recommendation for appointment of the appellants. The reconvened meeting must include the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society, Inspector Cooperative Society and District Manager, HAFED. The Board was expressly restrained from reopening the first two stages of the recruitment process, including adequacy of advertisement or legality of the interview process. It was directed to take a fresh decision only on the third stage, including whether the appellants possessed the essential qualifications, were not disqualified, were the candidates actually recommended on interview, and whether any eligible and more meritorious candidates had been ignored at the stage of appointment.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice Sanjay Karol observed that, in public employment, the essential norms are proper advertisement, a fair and transparent selection process, and appointment by the competent authority. On the facts, the Bench found no fundamental defect in the first two stages of recruitment: the vacancies had been publicly advertised in newspapers, applications were invited, and there was no finding of illegality, fraud, manipulation, or consideration of ineligible candidates in the interview process. The Bench held that the real defect arose only at the third stage, namely, the formal decision of appointment by the Board of Directors in the meeting dated Aug 13, 2014 in the absence of the officials whose presence and concurrence were stated to be compulsory under Rule 3.
The Bench further observed that the presence of the Assistant Registrar, Inspector Cooperative Societies and District Manager, HAFED under Rule 3 serves a salutary and essentially supervisory purpose, namely, to ensure that the recruitment process conforms to the Rules, that eligible candidates alone are recommended, and that no disqualification or procedural violation has occurred. Their absence, though amounting to infraction of Rule 3, did not by itself render the entire recruitment process illegal where the earlier stages were otherwise untainted. The Bench accepted the submission that candidates should not be made to suffer for an irregularity attributable to the authorities, especially when no allegation existed as to defective advertisement, tainted interviews, or appointment of ineligible candidates.
The Bench also observed that the third stage of recruitment was severable from the first two stages. Therefore, a defect in the Board’s final appointment decision could be rectified independently without reopening or invalidating the advertisement and interview stages. It noted additionally that the appellants had continued in service for more than ten years, though under interim protection, and held that the defect at the third stage was curable and not fatal.
Briefly, the appeal arose from the annulment of the appellants’ 2014 appointments as Clerk-cum-Salesman and Peon-cum-Chowkidar in the Thanesar Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd., Kurukshetra. The recruitment had been initiated after permission from the Registrar, public advertisement, receipt of applications, interviews on Aug 11, 2014, and approval by the Managing Committee/Board of Directors on Aug 13, 2014. There was no allegation that the appellants lacked eligibility or qualification, nor any allegation of fraud, impersonation, malpractice or manipulation against them personally.
Their appointments were challenged by members of the Society principally on the ground that the decision to appoint had been taken in violation of amended Rule 3 of the Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003, since the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Inspector Cooperative Societies and District Manager, HAFED were not present in the meeting dated Aug 13, 2014; violation of Rule 14(a) regarding medical fitness certificates was also alleged. The authorities under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, and thereafter the High Court treated Rule 3 breach as fatal and invalidated the appointments, though liberty for future participation with age relaxation was granted.
