Supreme Court of India· 11 June 2026
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?
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
They are curable. The third stage of the recruitment process is severable and can be separated from the earlier two phases without affecting their validity, and rectification of the third phase does not involve the candidates. Infraction of Rule 3 cannot render the entire recruitment process illegal where it does not otherwise suffer from any fundamental error or defect; the appellants ought not be made to suffer for an irregularity committed by the officials.
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 59We, thus find force in the submission made on behalf of Appellants that for the irregularity committed by the officials, the Appellants ought not be made to suffer, as no allegations had been made as regards the validity of advertisement or the manner in which interview was conducted or that any ineligible candidates were recommended/appointed. Therefore, even if there be any deficiency in the meeting of the BOD because of the absence of the official members, nothing prevents the society to convene a fresh meeting where these official members would be present so that decision taken to appoint to the services various categories in the societies is in consonance with Rule 3. 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. As discussed above, the said provision is to ensure and the cross check the process to ensure that the recruitment process was conducted properly by following the norms and that no fundamental error had been committed.
Paragraph 60We are of the view that the third stage of the recruitment process is severable and can be separated from the early two phases without affecting the validity of the earlier two stages. 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.
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 →