Supreme Court of India· 11 June 2026
Whether amended Rule 3 of the Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003, which mandates the presence and concurrence of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Inspector Cooperative Societies and District Manager, HAFED while taking decisions relating to appointments, is mandatory in nature or merely directory?
GAURAV MEHLA & ORS v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
2026 INSC 641 · SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 23061 of 2025
Coram: Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh; Sanjay Karol
Answer
Rule 3 is salutary in nature. The final authority to appoint lies with the Board of Directors, whose elected members may not be proficient in service and technical matters, and the presence of the non-elected official members is to ensure that the recruitment rules have been strictly adhered to. Their role is therefore essentially supervisory, and even though their presence has been made compulsory in the meeting of the Board for finalising appointments, their absence will not render the appointments illegal.
Headnote
Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003 — rr.3, 14(a), 15 and 35 — Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 — s.36 — Constitution of India — Arts. 14 and 15 — Public employment — Curable defect — Severability of recruitment stages —
Service Rules, 2003 — r.3 — Absence of the non-elected official members — Effect on validity —
Held: The presence and concurrence of the Assistant Registrar, Inspector of Cooperative Societies and District Manager, HAFED under Rule 3 is salutary, their role being essentially supervisory. Even where made compulsory, their absence will not render the appointments illegal. (¶58)
Service Rules, 2003 — r.3 — Recruitment in three stages — Severability —
Held further: A recruitment process splits into three stages — advertisement, the manner of recruitment, and the final appointment. The third stage is severable, and a defect there does not vitiate the earlier two, which a reconvened Board may not reopen. (¶56, 60, 64)
Constitution of India — Arts. 14 and 15 — Defect going to the root of the recruitment —
Held further: A defect goes to the root only where the posts were not properly advertised, denying eligible candidates the chance to apply, where the mode of recruitment was marked by fraud or manipulation, or where ineligible candidates were considered. (¶53)
Service Rules, 2003 — r.3 — Rectification by a reconvened Board — Past service counted —
Held further: Infraction of Rule 3 being curable and not fatal, the Board shall reconvene with the official members present; if found eligible the appellants are re-appointed with past service counted, without arrears. Appeal allowed. (¶62, 66)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 25In light of the factual background noticed hereinabove, the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the statutory framework governing the recruitment process and the findings concurrently recorded by the authorities below and the High Court, the following questions arise for consideration before this Court: i. Whether amended Rule 3 of the Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003, which mandates the presence and concurrence of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Inspector Cooperative Societies and District Manager, HAFED while taking decisions relating to appointments, is mandatory in nature or merely directory? ii. Whether the recruitment and appointments made pursuant to the resolution dated 13.08.2014 were in contravention of the mandatory requirements prescribed under Rule 3 and other provisions of the Service Rules, 2003? iii. Whether the alleged defects and irregularities pointed out in the recruitment process constitute substantive illegality going to the root of the appointments so as to render the same void ab initio, or whether such defects are merely procedural and curable in nature? iv. Whether Rule 35 of the Service Rules, 2003 and Section 36 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 could be invoked to sustain the appointments notwithstanding the alleged non-compliance with Rule 3? v. Whether the Appellants, having rendered more than a decade of continuous service without any allegation regarding their eligibility, conduct or integrity, are entitled to equitable protection on the principles of proportionality, fairness and legitimate expectation? vi. Whether the judgments rendered by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, affirming the orders passed by the statutory authorities rescinding the appointments of the Appellants, warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India?
Paragraph 58As we have seen, Rule 3 mandates the presence and concurrence of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society, Inspector of Co-operative Society and the Director Manager of HAFED in the meeting where the decision is to be taken for appointment. In our view, the said provision under Rule 3 is salutary in nature, in as much as the final authority to give appointment to various categories of service in the society lies with the BOD. However, BOD also consists of members who are elected i.e., President or other Directors, all of whom may not be proficient in the service matters and other technical matters required to be considered in the process of recruitment. Reading of Rule 15 clearly stipulates the various parameters to adjudge the suitability of the candidates which the non-elected official members of the society namely, the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Society, Inspector of Cooperative Society, District Manager, HAFED may be in a better position to assess as to whether the candidates who are recommended for appointment do fulfil the requirements as per the bye laws and relevant Rules, and to ensure that no rules or any of the bye laws had been violated. Thus, in our opinion, the presence of the non-elected official members of the BOD is to ensure that the recruitment rules have been strictly adhered to in making the appointment, i.e., the necessary advertisement had been issued, the interview was conducted properly as per rules and only the eligible candidates who do not suffer from any disqualification have been recommended for appointment, which exercise can be better undertaken by these non-elected official members. 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.
Acts & Sections
r.3 Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003r.14(a) Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003r.15 Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003r.35 Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003s.36 Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984s.27 Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984Art. 14 Constitution of IndiaArt. 15 Constitution of IndiaOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of GAURAV MEHLA & ORS v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →