The Supreme Court has ruled that a procedural flaw occurring at the final stage of appointments cannot, by itself, wipe out an otherwise fair and transparent recruitment exercise. In a significant decision, the Court directed a cooperative society in Haryana to revisit the appointments of seven employees whose services had been terminated despite having worked for more than a decade.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh overturned a Punjab and Haryana High Court verdict that had upheld the cancellation of the employees’ appointments as Clerk-cum-Salesmen and Peon-cum-Chowkidars in the Thanesar Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society at Kurukshetra.
The dispute stemmed from appointments made in 2014. Members of the cooperative society had challenged the recruitment, arguing that it violated Rule 3 of the Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003. The rule mandates the participation and concurrence of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Inspector of Cooperative Societies and the District Manager of HAFED during meetings where appointment decisions are finalized.
It was undisputed that these officials were not present when the Board of Directors approved the appointments on August 13, 2014. However, the Supreme Court found that the recruitment process itself had not been questioned on substantive grounds.
The Court noted that there were no allegations of defective advertisements, ineligible candidates being selected, manipulation of interviews, fraud or mala fide conduct. Vacancies had been publicly advertised and candidates were chosen through a selection process conducted in accordance with the applicable framework.
Drawing a clear distinction between defects that strike at the heart of recruitment and those that arise only during the final appointment stage, the Bench held that the absence of the designated officials did not taint the entire exercise.
According to the Court, recruitment can broadly be divided into three phases: issuing advertisements, conducting the selection process and making final appointments. While irregularities in the first two stages may undermine the legitimacy of recruitment itself, shortcomings at the final stage can, in appropriate cases, be corrected without nullifying everything that preceded them.
The Bench observed that the presence of the officials under Rule 3 was essentially supervisory in nature and intended to ensure compliance with prescribed procedures. Their absence, therefore, amounted to a rectifiable irregularity rather than a fatal defect.
The Court also emphasized that the employees could not be made to suffer for procedural lapses committed by authorities when they had no role in the alleged violation and had already rendered more than ten years of service.
Consequently, the cooperative society has been directed to convene a fresh Board meeting within one month in the presence of the Assistant Registrar, Inspector of Cooperative Societies and District Manager of HAFED. The Board will reconsider the appointments, but its scrutiny will be limited. It cannot revisit the advertisement process or the conduct of interviews. Instead, it may only verify whether the candidates possessed the required qualifications, were free from disqualifications and had been duly recommended through the selection process.
The Court further clarified that if the employees are found eligible and are reappointed, their earlier service will be counted for all consequential purposes. However, they will not receive back wages for the period following their removal in August 2025.
The ruling reinforces the principle that administrative lapses capable of correction should not automatically destroy an entire recruitment process, particularly where fairness in selection remains unquestioned.
