Gaurav Mehla vs State Of Haryana
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 641
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). _____ OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 23061 of 2025)
GAURAV MEHLA & ORS. ...APPELLANTS (S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeal presents an important question
concerning the delicate balance between strict adherence to
statutory recruitment norms and the constitutional obligation
Digitally signed by
MINI
Date: 2026.06.11
17:01:15 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
Page 1 of 52
of courts to ensure fairness where employees, appointed
through a duly initiated public selection process and having
rendered long years of unblemished service, face the prospect
of displacement on account of procedural defects allegedly
attributable not to them but to the authorities conducting the
recruitment. At its core, the controversy compels this Court to
examine whether every infraction of a recruitment procedure
necessarily renders an appointment void in law.
3. The present proceedings arise out of the judgment and
final order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA
No.1259 of 2024 (O&M), whereby the Division Bench of the
High Court has affirmed the judgment dated 22.04.2024
rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.23148 of
2017 and consequently, declined to interfere with the
administrative and quasi-judicial orders passed by the
authorities under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act,
1984. By virtue of the aforesaid judgments and orders, the
appointments of the present Appellants, who were appointed
in the year 2014 to the posts of Clerk-cum-Salesman and
Page 2 of 52
Peon-cum-Chowkidar in the Thanesar Cooperative Marketing-
cum-Processing Society Ltd., Kurukshetra (for short
“ cooperative society” ) pursuant to a recruitment process
initiated after issuance of public advertisement and grant of
approval by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana
came to be annulled on the ground that the appointment was
allegedly made in violation of amended Rule 3 of the Primary
Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Limited Staff
Service Rules, 2003 (for short “Service Rules, 2003” ). The
High Court, while affirming the orders dated 06.06.2017
passed by the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies
(Stores), Haryana, and 29.09.2017 passed by the Additional
Chief Secretary to Government Haryana, Cooperation
Department, held that the appointments had not been made
in conformity with the mandatory statutory requirement
concerning the presence and concurrence of specified
departmental authorities i.e. Assistant Registrar Cooperative
Societies, the Inspector (Cooperative Societies) and District
Manager, Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing
Federation Limited (HAFED), at the time of taking the decision
Page 3 of 52
to appoint, and therefore could not be sustained in law.
Nevertheless, taking note of the fact that the Appellants had
remained in continuous service since the year 2014 and had
crossed the prescribed upper age limit during the pendency of
litigation, the Division Bench granted liberty to the Appellants
to participate in any future recruitment process and further
directed that they be accorded appropriate age relaxation
whenever fresh recruitment is undertaken by the Respondent
Society.
4. The Appellants contend that the recruitment pursuant to
which they came to be appointed was undertaken after due
issuance of public advertisement, participation of eligible
candidates and conduct of a regular selection process, and
there was no any allegation with respect to the conduct or lack
of eligibility attributable to them. According to the Appellants,
they entered service through a process initiated with the
approval of the competent authorities and, having rendered
more than a decade of continuous and unblemished service,
they could not have been deprived of their livelihood on
account of an alleged procedural defect pertaining to the
Page 4 of 52
internal functioning and composition of the appointing
authority, a matter over which they neither exercised control
nor played any role whatsoever.
5. The Respondents, per contra, contend that the
recruitment process stood vitiated at its very inception owing
to non-compliance with amended Rule 3 of the Service Rules,
2003, which, according to them, mandatorily required the
presence and concurrence of the Assistant Registrar
Cooperative Societies, Inspector Cooperative Societies and
District Manager, HAFED at the stage of appointment decision-
making. It is their submission that once the recruitment
process is shown to have been conducted contrary to a
mandatory statutory prescription governing public
appointments, the resultant appointments become void ab
initio and incapable of being sustained on considerations of
equity, sympathy or long continuation in service. Apart from
the aforesaid alleged infraction of Rule 3, the Respondents
have also raised several other objections touching upon the
legality and propriety of the recruitment process, including
Page 5 of 52
allegations relating to reservation compliance, constitution of
the selection body, sanctioned strength of posts and
procedural irregularities in the conduct of recruitment
proceedings.
6. Before examining the rival submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties and the correctness of the impugned
judgments rendered by the Division Bench and the learned
Single Judge of the High Court, as well as the legality of the
orders passed by the statutory authorities under the Haryana
Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, it would be necessary to
recapitulate, in some detail, the factual background out of
which the present proceedings have arisen.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7. Respondent Nos.4 and 5, namely the Cooperative Society
and its Managing Committee, being a cooperative society
governed under the provisions of the Haryana Cooperative
Societies Act, 1984 (for short “ 1984 Act”) and the Service
Rules, 2003, sought permission from the Registrar,
Page 6 of 52
Cooperative Societies, Haryana for filling 03 posts of Clerk-
cum-Salesman and 04 posts of Peon-cum-Chowkidar in the
establishment of the Society. The same was granted and the
permission further stipulated that the recruitment process was
required to be undertaken by issuing public advertisements in
Hindi as well as English newspapers so as to ensure adequate
publicity and participation of eligible candidates. Pursuant
thereto, an advertisement dated 11.07.2014 came to be issued
inviting applications from eligible candidates.
8. Subsequently, on 30.07.2014, a corrigendum/public
notice was issued requiring candidates to furnish applications
in the prescribed proforma. The Board of Directors of the
Society convened meetings in connection with the proposed
recruitment exercise and constituted a Sub-Committee
comprising the President of the Society, two Directors and the
Inspector Cooperative Societies for processing and supervising
the recruitment.
9. Thereafter, interviews were conducted on 11.08.2014 and
the process of selection culminated in the meeting dated
13.08.2014 wherein the Managing Committee/Board of
Page 7 of 52
Directors approved the appointments of the present Appellants
against the posts of Clerk-cum-Salesman and Peon-cum-
Chowkidar on regular basis. Pursuant thereto, the Appellants
joined service and continuously discharged their duties from
the year 2014 onwards. Throughout the course of proceedings
there has been no allegation that the Appellants lacked the
requisite eligibility or qualifications for the posts in question,
nor has any allegation of fraud, impersonation, malpractice or
manipulation been levelled against them personally.
10. The appointments of the Appellants, however, came to
be challenged by Respondent Nos.6 and 7, namely Randhir
Singh and Dharam Pal, who were members of the Cooperative
Society, by filing Petition/Coop. No.05 of 2015 under Section
27 of 1984 Act, before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Haryana. The complainants asserted their locus standi on the
ground that, as members of the Society, they had a legitimate
interest in ensuring compliance with the governing statutory
framework. The following allegations were raised: (i) violation
of Rules 7, 8 and 15 of the Service Rules, 2003, the process
allegedly being tailored to appoint favoured candidates already
Page 8 of 52
working on contractual basis; (ii) breach of sanctioned strength
prescribed under Rule 6 read with Annexure 'A', it being
alleged that the Society (being a Category 'A' entity with
turnover exceeding Rs.15 crores) already had employees
beyond the permissible strength; (iii) the advertisement dated
11.07.2014 being vague, deficient and misleading, in that it
failed to specify the number of vacancies, last date for
applications, office address, timings and application format,
thereby allegedly facilitating favouritism and violating Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution; (iv) the corrigendum dated
30.07.2014 being manipulated inasmuch as although fresh
applications were invited, the last date was not extended, and
interview letters were allegedly issued only to pre-selected
candidates; (v) non-compliance with reservation requirements
for Scheduled Castes, Ex-servicemen and physically
handicapped persons under Rule 7(d); and (vi) the
appointments having been hurriedly finalized in anticipation
of judicial intervention, as CWP No.16172 of 2014 had already
been filed by the Respondent No.6 before the High Court and
a stay order dated 14.08.2014 was passed thereafter, yet
Page 9 of 52
appointment letters and medical formalities were completed on
13.08.2014 itself.
11. The principal challenge, however, centred around alleged
violation of amended Rule 3 of the Service Rules, 2003. The
complainants asserted that after amendment of Rule 3 on
28.01.2011, appointments could lawfully be made only in a
meeting attended by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative
Societies, Inspector Cooperative Societies and District
Manager, HAFED, whose presence and concurrence at the
stage of appointment decision-making had been rendered
mandatory under the Rules. Reliance was placed upon a reply
dated 18.09.2014 submitted by the Assistant Registrar
Cooperative Societies, Kurukshetra, wherein it was stated that
the said officer had remained on medical leave as well as
station leave from 09.08.2014 to 18.08.2014 and had neither
attended the meeting of the Board of Directors held on
13.08.2014 nor participated in the process of selection and
appointment. On that basis, Respondent Nos.6 and 7
contended that the appointments were void ab initio . It was
additionally alleged that violation of Rule 14(a) occurred
Page 10 of 52
inasmuch as the selected candidates were permitted to furnish
medical fitness certificates from private MBBS doctors instead
of the Civil Surgeon of the area as mandated. On the aforesaid
grounds, setting aside of the resolution dated 13.08.2014 and
declaration of the entire recruitment as illegal and void was
prayed for.
12. The complaint filed by the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 came
to be adjudicated by Respondent No.8, namely the Additional
Registrar Cooperative Societies (Stores), Haryana, Panchkula,
who passed a detailed order dated 06.06.2017 holding that the
recruitment process undertaken by the Respondent-Society
was contrary to Rule 3 and Rule 14(a) of the Service Rules,
2003. It was found that the amended Rule 3 had been adopted
by the Society through Resolution No.4 dated 01.04.2011,
rendering its compliance mandatory; that the officials i.e.,
Assistant Registrar, Inspector and District Manager, HAFED
were admittedly absent from the meeting dated 13.08.2014;
that the advertisement omitted to mention last date for
applying; that the appointment letters impermissibly permitted
MBBS qualified private doctors to issue medical certificates in
Page 11 of 52
lieu of the Civil Surgeon; and that the extraordinary haste in
issuing appointment letters, accepting joining reports and
completing medical formalities on the very day of selection
reflected an unexplained urgency. The Additional Registrar
consequently set aside the resolution dated 13.08.2014 and
the appointments made pursuant thereto.
13. Aggrieved by the above order dated 06.06.2017 passed
by the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies (Stores),
Haryana, the present Appellants preferred Appeal No.28 of
2017 and the Respondent-Society preferred Appeal No.30 of
2017 before the Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Haryana, Cooperation Department, Chandigarh. It was
contended that the Inspector Cooperative Societies had
participated in the interview proceedings on 11.08.2014, that
notices had been issued to all mandatory authorities for the
meeting of 13.08.2014 though they chose not to attend, and
that medical examination from MBBS doctors was conducted
on the directions of the Society.
14. The Additional Chief Secretary, however, vide order dated
29.09.2017 dismissed both the appeals and affirmed the
Page 12 of 52
findings recorded by the Additional Registrar. It was held that
locus standi of the complainant-members was not barred
under Section 27 of the 1984 Act; that the Sub-Committee
proceedings of 11.08.2014 comprising three Directors and one
Inspector Cooperative Societies could not be equated with the
Board of Directors meeting contemplated under Rule 3; that
none of the three mandatory officials were present in the
meeting dated 13.08.2014; that neither the Administrative
Committee proceedings nor the BOD resolution made any
reference to sanctioned strength; and that permitting medical
examination by private MBBS doctors constituted violation of
Rule 14(a) of the Service Rules, 2003.
15. Aggrieved by the aforementioned orders, the present
Appellants approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
by filing CWP No.23148 of 2017 seeking quashing of the
aforesaid orders. The Appellants principally contended that
grave prejudice would be caused if the appointments were
invalidated after several years of continuous service; that the
quorum for the meeting dated 13.08.2014 stood satisfied in
terms of Rule 35 of the Service Rules, 2003 which prescribes
Page 13 of 52
three members as quorum for Managing Committee meetings;
that the absence of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative
Societies, Inspector Cooperative Societies and District
Manager, HAFED from the meeting dated 13.08.2014
constituted at best a curable irregularity. Reliance in this
regard was placed upon Section 36 of the 1984 Act, which
provides that acts of a Cooperative Society or its committee
shall not be invalidated merely on account of defects in
procedure, constitution of the committee or vacancy in
membership or office; that the alleged violation of Rule 14(a)
by contending that the selected candidates had obtained
medical fitness certificates from MBBS-qualified doctors
pursuant to directions issued by the Society and had
additionally undertaken to undergo medical examination from
the Civil Surgeon or competent medical authority whenever
required; and lastly, the District Manager, HAFED had in
practice never attended BOD meetings, even after the 2011
amendment.
16. The Respondent-Society filed a written statement
supporting the appointments. The State authorities and
Page 14 of 52
Respondent Nos.6 and 7 opposed the writ petition, maintaining
that Rule 3 was mandatory and void ab initio , and additionally
pointing out that the advertisement had been published in the
Delhi edition of The Indian Express instead of the Haryana
edition, further evidencing mala fides .
17. The Single Judge vide judgment dated 22.04.2024
dismissed CWP No.23148 of 2017, holding that the
appointments had been made in violation of the mandatory
provisions of the Service Rules, 2003. Examining Rules 3, 4, 7
and 14(a), the learned Single Judge held that Rule 3 specifically
mandated that the decision regarding appointments “shall” be
taken in the presence and concurrence of the Assistant
Registrar Cooperative Societies, Inspector Cooperative
Societies and District Manager, HAFED, all of whom were
admittedly absent from the meeting dated 13.08.2014 and that
this constituted the primary and fatal defect rendering the
recruitment process unsustainable in law, while the alleged
violation of Rule 14(a) relating to medical fitness certificates
could at best be treated as a curable procedural irregularity.
The contention based on Rule 35 was also rejected on the
Page 15 of 52
ground that it was a general provision governing meetings of
the Managing Committee, which could not override Rules 3 and
4, being specific provisions dealing exclusively with
appointments; the settled principle that a specific provision
prevails over a general provision was applied. The plea of equity
was equally rejected, by holding that where appointments are
contrary to mandatory statutory provisions at their inception,
mere efflux of time or continuation in service, especially under
interim protection granted by the High Court cannot validate
such appointments. Nevertheless, the learned Single Judge
granted liberty to the Appellants to participate in any future
recruitment process, taking note of the fact that they had
crossed the upper age limit during the pendency of the
litigation.
18. The present Appellants preferred LPA No.1259 of 2024
before the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana. Before the Division Bench, the Appellants reiterated
the submissions made before the Single Judge Bench.
Page 16 of 52
19. The Division Bench by the impugned judgment dated
29.07.2025 dismissed LPA No.1259 of 2024 and affirmed the
findings recorded by the learned Single Judge noting that since
the applicability of the Service Rules, 2003 to the Respondent-
Society was undisputed, there existed no justification to
interfere with the judgment of the Single Judge inasmuch as
the appointments offered to the Appellants had not been made
by the competent statutory body. The Division Bench further
held that mere recommendation by the Sub-Committee or
subsequent affirmation thereof by the Board of Directors could
not cure the defect in the recruitment process since, in the
hierarchy of norms governing appointments, the statutory
Rules were to prevail over internal resolutions. While affirming
the invalidation, the Division Bench directed that the
Appellants be permitted to participate in future recruitment
and be granted appropriate age relaxation.
20. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments rendered by the
learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court,
as well as the administrative orders passed by the statutory
authorities rescinding the appointments after more than ten
Page 17 of 52
years of continuous service, the Appellants have approached
this Court by way of the present proceedings.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
21. Learned senior counsel on behalf of the Appellants made
the following submissions:
i. The Appellants were selected through an advertised,
merit-based process initiated by the Managing
Committee and ratified by the Board of Directors.
Therefore, no arbitrariness or favouritism was involved.
ii. The Appellants had no role in the composition of the
quorum or administrative procedures of the Society.
Penalising them for institutional lapses violates settled
jurisprudence ( State of U.P. v. Johri Mai , (2004) 4
SCC ).
iii. Amended Rule 3, though mandatory, ought not to
be interpreted so rigidly as to vitiate the entire process
ex post facto , especially when appointments were made
in good faith and acted upon for over 10 years.
Page 18 of 52
iv. Rule 35 of the Service Rules, 2003 permits the
Managing Committee to constitute a quorum of three
members. Therefore, failure to consider this provision
renders the High Court's judgment per incuriam .
v. The High Court failed to apply the doctrine of
curability of procedural irregularities ( Rajasthan Public
Service Commission v. Kaila Devi , (2018) 12 SCC
101 ), under which technical lapses not attributable to
the candidates are held non-fatal.
vi. The Appellants’ vested rights, accrued through long
years of honest and uninterrupted service, cannot be
extinguished by retrospective invalidation of the
selection process.
vii. No affected or unsuccessful candidate challenged
the process. The complaint was instituted by members
having no competing interest in the posts.
viii. The Appellants have crossed the maximum age
limit for re-application and would suffer irreparable
injury, violating the principle of proportionality.
Page 19 of 52
ix. The Appellants were protected by interim orders
throughout the pendency of the litigation, with
uninterrupted service, indicating implied recognition by
the State.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NOS. 6
AND 7 (Original Complainants / Members of the Cooperative
Society)
22. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent
Nos.6 and 7 made the following submissions:
i. It was contended that the appointments in
question were void ab initio having been made in clear
violation of mandatory Rules 3 and 14(a) of the Service
Rules, 2003. Learned counsel submitted that
amended Rule 3 expressly mandated the presence and
concurrence of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative
Societies, Inspector Cooperative Societies and District
Manager, HAFED while taking decisions relating to
appointments and it was an admitted position that
Page 20 of 52
none of the said officers were present in the meeting
dated 13.08.2014.
ii. It was further submitted that Rule 14(a)
specifically required furnishing of a medical fitness
certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon of the area,
whereas in the present case the selected candidates
were permitted to obtain medical certificates from
private MBBS doctors in clear violation of the statutory
requirement.
iii. The appointments had been made beyond the
sanctioned strength prescribed under the Rules and
without adhering to reservation requirements
applicable for Scheduled Castes, Ex-servicemen and
physically handicapped categories under Rule 7(d).
iv. The advertisement had deliberately been
published in the Delhi Edition of “The Indian Express”
instead of the Haryana Edition, thereby restricting
participation of eligible local candidates.
v. It was further contended that the appointments
were hurriedly finalized despite pendency of challenge
Page 21 of 52
proceedings before the High Court in CWP No.16172
of 2014.
vi. Refuting the reliance placed by the Appellants
upon Rule 35 of the Service Rules, it was argued that
Rule 35 was merely a general provision relating to
meetings of the Managing Committee and could not
override the mandatory requirements specifically
prescribed under Rule 3 governing appointments.
vii. The Appellants could not claim equity or
protection merely because they had continued in
service for a long period or under cover of interim
orders passed during pendency of the litigation.
Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in
Ramjit Singh Kardam v. Sanjeev Kumar , (2020) 20
SCC 209 laying down that there can be no equity in
favour of appointments made in violation of statutory
recruitment rules.
viii. The Respondent-authorities had already issued
relieving orders to the Appellants, and they had
accordingly been relieved from service.
Page 22 of 52
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 4
23. The learned counsel submitted that the Respondent-
Society had not violated any statutory rules or norms while
conducting the recruitment process and that the selection
process undertaken in the year 2014 was conducted in a
transparent manner after issuance of public advertisement. It
was further submitted that the candidates, including the
present Appellants, were selected on merit in accordance with
the procedure adopted by the Society.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NOS. 1, 2, 3
AND 8 (State of Haryana through Additional Chief Secretary,
Cooperation Department; Deputy Registrar Cooperative
Societies; Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies; and
Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies)
24. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent
Nos.1, 2, 3 and 8 supported the impugned judgments rendered
by the High Court as well as the orders passed by the statutory
authorities and submitted that the present Special Leave
Page 23 of 52
Petition was devoid of merit and did not raise any substantial
question of law warranting interference by this Court.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
25.
In 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
Page 24 of 52
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?
Page 25 of 52
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?
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
26. Before examining the examining the issues, it
becomes necessary to examine the statutory framework
governing the recruitment in question. The appointments
under consideration are regulated by the provisions of the
Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, the Haryana
Cooperative Societies Rules, 1989, and the Primary
Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff
Service Rules, 2003 framed thereunder. The controversy in the
present proceedings principally revolves around the
interpretation and effect of amended Rule 3 of the Service
Page 26 of 52
Rules, 2003, as also the interplay between the said provision
and Rules 7, 14(a), 35 and Section 27 of the Act of 1984.
27. The record reveals that the Service Rules for Primary
Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies were
circulated vide communication dated 20.08.2003 addressed to
all Presidents of Cooperative Marketing Societies in the State
of Haryana and were framed in accordance with Rule 29 of the
Haryana Cooperative Societies Rules, 1989.
28. It further emerges from the record that the
amendments communicated vide instructions dated
31.01.2011 were duly adopted by the Respondent-Society
through Resolution No.4 passed in the meeting of the Board of
Directors held on 01.04.2011, thereby rendering the amended
provisions binding upon the Society while making
appointments.
29. Rule 3 of the Service Rules, 2003, as amended
pursuant to the instructions dated 31.01.2011, reads as
under:
“ Rule 3 — Powers to make appointment shall vest
with the B.O.D./B.O.A. of the society. Further
provided that decision for appointment to various
categories of service shall be taken in the meeting in
Page 27 of 52
which the presence and concurrence of concerned
Assistant Registrar, Inspector Coop. Societies &
Distt. Manager, Hafed, shall be compulsory. Any
addition, alteration or amendment in the service
rules will be subject to prior approval of Registrar
Coop. Societies Haryana.”
30. Rule 4 of the Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-
Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003 delineates
the administrative and supervisory powers of the Board of
Directors/Board of Administrators and reads as under:
“ Rule 4 — These rules vest in the B.O.D./B.O.A.
which is also empowered to issue such instructions
as may be necessary to give effect to and carry out
the purposes of the provisions of these rules or
otherwise to secure the effective control of the staff
of the Marketing Society.”
31. Rule 7 of the Service Rules, 2003, which governs the
procedure relating to recruitment and appointments, assumes
considerable significance in the present controversy. The said
Rule reads thus:
“ Rule 7 — Recruitment:
(a) All appointments shall be made by the
B.O.D./B.O.A.
(b) Prior permission under Rule 7(a) of the Rules shall
be obtained for stop-gap arrangement from the
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana.
(c) The recruitment shall be made in accordance with
the procedure laid down in these rules.
(d) Reservation in direct recruitment for S.C./S.T.,
Ex-servicemen and physically handicapped persons
shall be according to the instructions of the State
Government issued from time to time.”
Page 28 of 52
32. Rule 14(a) of the Service Rules, 2003, concerning
medical fitness prior to joining, reads as under:
“ Rule 14(a) — Every person selected for
appointment by BOD/BOA shall, before joining
duty, be required to furnish a medical certificate of
fitness from Civil Surgeon of the area provided that
such certificate shall not be necessary for a person
who is on deputation or who is selected by
promotion and has already given a medical
certificate of fitness in his former appointment.”
The authorities below recorded a finding that instead
of obtaining medical fitness certificates from the Civil Surgeon
as contemplated under Rule 14(a), the selected candidates
were permitted to furnish certificates from MBBS-qualified
private doctors, which according to the authorities constituted
an additional procedural irregularity in the recruitment
process.
33. Rule 15 of the Service Rules, 2003, concerning manner
of appointment, reads as under:
“ Rule 15 — Manner of appointment : -
(i) All appointments to the service shall be
made by the BOD/BOA by keeping the complete
record of the applications received and as per the
qualifications, and experience laid down in these
rules, age, status of the applicant etc.
Page 29 of 52
(ii) The BOD/BOA shall ensure that a
transparent and systematic record of the application
is kept and the persons who are to be called for
interview are shortlisted on the basis of guidelines
laid down by the BOD/BOA.
(iii) As far as possible, the BOD/BOA shall be
guided by the academic record, professional
experience including technical experience in the
respective field, and the general merit of the
candidate.
(iv) The BOD/BOA shall give full justification
about the selection made and the documents shall
he signed by the members of the BOD/BOA and the
record shall remain in custody of the Manager who
shall keep the same in safe custody.
(v) The BOD/BOA may fill up the vacancies
from the open market by advertising the same in the
leading Newspapers. "
34. Rule 35 of the Service Rules, 2003, strongly relied
upon by the Appellants to contend that the quorum
requirement stood substantially satisfied, pertains to meetings
of the Managing Committee and reads as under:
“ Rule 35 — Meeting of the managing Committee
shall be held when necessary. At least 7 days
notice of the meeting shall be given to Committee
members before a meeting is held. Three members
shall form a quorum, the President or in his absence
a member elected by those present in a meeting
shall preside. Unless so otherwise provided in these
bylaws, all questions shall be decided by a majority
of votes. Each member shall have one vote. In case
of equality of votes, the Chairman shall have a
casting vote.”
Page 30 of 52
The Appellants have placed considerable emphasis
upon Rule 35 to contend that once three members constituted
valid quorum for meetings of the Managing Committee, the
meeting dated 13.08.2014 could not have been invalidated
merely on account of absence of the Assistant Registrar
Cooperative Societies, Inspector Cooperative Societies and
District Manager, HAFED.
The contesting Respondents, however, have
argued that Rule 35 is a general provision governing meetings
of the Managing Committee, whereas Rule 3 is a special
provision specifically governing appointments and therefore
the latter must prevail over the former.
35. Section 27 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act,
1984, under which the original proceedings were instituted by
Respondent Nos.6 and 7, empowers the Registrar to examine
the legality and propriety of actions of cooperative societies.
The provision substantially confers supervisory jurisdiction
upon the Registrar to ensure that the affairs of cooperative
societies are conducted in accordance with law.
Page 31 of 52
36. Section 36 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act,
1984, heavily relied upon by the Appellants, assumes
significance in the context of the present controversy and reads
as under:
“ Section 36 —
Acts of co-operative societies not to be invalidated by
certain defects:
No act of a co-operative society or any committee or
any officer shall be deemed to be invalid by reason
only of the existence of any defect in procedure or in
the constitution of the society or of the committee or
any vacancy in the membership or office thereof or
in the appointment or election of an officer or on the
ground that such officer was disqualified for
appointment or election.”
According to the Appellants, Section 36 statutorily
recognizes the principle that mere procedural defects or defects
in constitution of committees do not automatically invalidate
actions of cooperative societies.
The Respondents, on the other hand, contend that
Section 36 cannot be invoked to validate actions taken in direct
contravention of mandatory statutory recruitment rules.
Page 32 of 52
37. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid statutory
framework that the rival submissions and the legality of the
impugned recruitment process are required to be examined.
ANALYSIS
38. The Cooperative Society is certainly not a private
entity and it’s functioning is governed by the 1984 Act and the
appointment to the society is governed by Service Rules 2003.
The aforesaid Cooperative Society partakes the colour of a
public entity and the appointment to the posts in the society
are governed by the Service Rules, 2003 as referred to above,
which provides the manner for recruitment for appointment to
various posts by following the proper norms of recruitment i.e.,
advertising the posts which are sought to be filled up, following
a selection process and specifying the Appointing Authority.
39. There are certain norms which are mandatorily
applicable for appointment to public employment. These are,
issuance of proper advertisement, conducting a fair and
transparent selection process, and appointment by the
competent authority.
Page 33 of 52
40. These are in consonance with the mandate of Articles
14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. Thus, there must be
equal opportunity provided to all eligible candidates to apply
for the post by way of advertisement/public notification which
appears to have been complied with as far as the Respondent
society is concerned. The advertisements for the said posts
were published in two newspapers, one in Indian Express and
th
other in Aaj Samaj on 11 July, 2014. Thus, there cannot be
any doubt that there was a public invitation from the eligible
candidates for the said posts and hence one of the most
important elements of public employment, is fulfilled which is
to give due notice by advertisement/public notice to enable the
aspiring eligible candidates to apply for the posts. Though
there appears to have been some challenge as regards the
advertisement allegedly on the ground that no last date was
fixed for receiving applications was mentioned, we are of the
view the said plea does not hold water in as much as the
advertisement clearly mentioned that the applications are to
be submitted within 21 days of the advertisement. The last
date for submission of application form thus would be on the
Page 34 of 52
st
21 day from the date of issuance of advertisement. Therefore,
even if no specific date was mentioned as the last date for
receiving the applications, the said advertisement clearly
stipulated the period during which the applications are to be
st
submitted, that is, the 21 day from the date of advertisement
will be treated as the last day. Hence there is no ambiguity with
respect to the same. In any event, there was no finding by any
of the fora below including High Court about any defect in the
said advertisement. Further, the contention that the
advertisement was issued in the Delhi Edition of the Indian
Express newspaper also does not warrant any consideration as
there is no allegation that it was not circulated in Haryana and
hence, it resulted in eligible candidates not getting the
requisite information of the advertisement of the posts.
Therefore, no fault could be found with the recruitment
process as far as the most fundamental initial stage of public
advertisement is concerned.
41. The next most important component of any
recruitment process is the manner in which recruitment is
carried out. It is now well settled that if the appointment is
Page 35 of 52
made by way of promotion under the relevant service rules, the
eligible candidates who fall within the zone of consideration in
the feeder grade are to be considered by the competent
Departmental Promotion Committee. In the present case, the
issue is not about promotion but by way of direct recruitment.
As far as direct recruitment is concerned, normally the
recruitment process may involve written test along with
interview or either of these of all the eligible candidates who
apply for the advertised posts which would depend upon the
relevant service rules governing the method of recruitment.
42. In the present case, it appears that the said posts of
Salesmen-cum-clerk, Peon-cum-Chowkidar are to be filled up
by way of direct recruitment and on the basis of performance
in the interview as revealed in the Service Rules. There is no
indication that the recruitment is to be conducted by way of
written examination, but by holding interview only as provided
under Rule 15.
43. In the present case there is no allegation about any
violation in any of the procedures at any of these two stages of
the recruitment contemplated under Rule 15. There is no
Page 36 of 52
allegation that any unqualified candidate who does not fulfil
the eligibility criteria, qualifications, age etc. had been
recommended and appointed. There was also no allegation
about any kind of fraud or manipulations, or any such
irregularity being practiced in the process of interview.
There is no allegation that the selection had been
made by not considering the academic record, professional
experience including the technical experience in the respective
field, or the general merits of the candidates as contemplated
under Rule 15.
There was no allegation that no justification has been
made for the selection by the Board of Director.
44. As mentioned above, as regards the requirement of
filling of the posts from open market, the same had been done
as the posts were duly advertised through two widely
circulated newspapers, one in English and other in Hindi and
the eligible candidates were invited as advertised in the
newspapers. There was no complaint from any eligible
candidate about the lack of proper advertisement of the posts
and also irregularities in the interview conducted.
Page 37 of 52
45. The only allegation made by the Respondent Nos. 6
and 7, who were the applicants before the Registrar
Cooperative Societies Haryana who had filed the initial
complaint against the said appointment of the present
Appellants is that the same had been done in violation of Rule
3 and Rule 14(a).
46. As far as Rule 3 is concerned, the said Rule provides
that any decision made for appointment to various posts to
services in the society, shall be made by the Board of
Directors/BOA of the society and in such meeting the presence
and concurrence of the concerned Assistant Registrar of the
society, Inspector of Cooperative Societies, and District
Manager (HAFED) shall be compulsory. In fact, this is the most
important plea taken by the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 which
has the potential of rendering the appointment of the
Appellants invalid.
In other words, this is a mandatory provision violation
which could render their appointment made by BOD/BOA
invalid. The plea taken by the Respondent nos. 6 and 7 before
the Registrar Cooperative Societies, as well as before the High
Page 38 of 52
Court was that this being a mandatory statutory provision,
violation of such provision would render any appointment
made illegal. The said plea was accepted by the Additional
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the Additional Chief Secretary
to Government, Haryana, Cooperation Department as well as
both the Single Bench and Division Bench of the High Court,
thus, declaring the appointment of the Appellants illegal.
47. The other point raised is the violation of Rule 14(a)
which provides that every person selected for appointment,
before joining must furnish the required medical certificate
from civil surgeon of the area. It has been submitted by the
Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 that the Appellants did not get the
certificates from the civil surgeons of the area, and they
obtained the certificates from other doctors which is not in
conformity with Rule 14(a). Hence, on the ground also, the
appointment of the Appellants is liable to be declared null and
void.
48. Thus, Respondent nos. 6 and 7 has consistently
pleaded that because of non-conformity with the provisions of
Rule 3 and Rule 14(a), the appointment of the Appellants are
Page 39 of 52
illegal and cannot be sustained. The same found approval from
the Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the
Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana,
Cooperation Department as well as the High Court, and the
same pleas are reiterated before us stating that even though
the Appellant might have continued in service for a long, they
do not deserve any sympathy as their appointments were made
contrary to the Service Rules, 2003 which are statutory in
nature and cannot be relaxed and, hence there was nothing
illegal in the order passed by the High Court declaring the
appointment of the Appellants as illegal.
49. The plea of the Appellants throughout has been that
defects in the meeting of the BOD/BOA in which certain official
members were not present, cannot be attributed to the
candidates and the Appellants had no role in it and as such,
the successful candidates who had already been appointed
cannot be made suffer for no fault on their part and because
of the mistake on the part of the authorities. Further, Rule 35
of the Service Rules, 2003 provides that in the meeting of the
Managing Committee, three members shall form the quorum
Page 40 of 52
and unless otherwise provided in the bye laws, all questions
shall be decided by a majority of votes. It has been contended
that in the said meeting of the BOD held on 13.08.2014 where
the decision was taken to appoint the Appellants, the quorum
was fulfilled. The President cum Chairman of the BOD/BOA
and four Directors were present and as such, the quorum was
fulfilled.
50. Further, it was submitted that as per Section 36 of the
1984 Act, no act of a cooperative society or any committee or
any official shall be deemed to invalidated only by reason of
any defect in procedure or in the constitution of the society or
of the committee or any vacancy in the membership or office
thereof or in the appointment or election of an officer or on the
ground that such officer was disqualified for appointment or
election. Thus, it has been submitted on behalf of the
Appellants that reading of the aforesaid Rules along with
Section 36 of the 1984 Act, the defect or deficiency in the
quorum of the BOD which took the decision to appoint the
Appellants cannot be said to be illegal and it was merely an
irregularity which cannot be said to be fatal, and necessary
Page 41 of 52
rectification can be made by the BOD. Even though the Rules
are statutory in the nature, and the word is used is
“compulsory” in Rule 3, if the Rules and provisions of the Act
are read as a whole, even if it is mandatory, it is a curable
defect, more so, when the Appellants had no role to play in
such an irregularity nor any fault could be attributed to the
Appellants.
51. It has been further submitted that since the
Appellants have been working for more than a decade, it will
be highly inequitable to dismiss their service merely because
of an irregularity, which does not amount to be a fundamental
defect. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the impugned
judgment of the High Court is required to be overturned, and
the impugned termination orders be set aside.
52. Having considered the rival contentions and materials
on record, what this Court has noted is that in the entire
recruitment process, beginning with advertisement/public
notice, till the conduct of the interview, there was no
fundamental defect which could go to the root of the
recruitment process. The only defect pointed out was at the
Page 42 of 52
stage of taking the formal decision to make appointment by the
BOD in their meeting held on 13.08.2014.
53. 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.
Similarly, if the mode of recruitment, which in the
present case is interview, had been marked by fraud or
manipulation or any such vitiating act on the part of the
candidates and recruiting authority, or if the recruiting
authority had considered ineligible candidates, the same can
lead to invalidation of the recruitment process as such a defect
also goes to the root of the recruitment.
The recruitment process itself must be transparent,
fair and non-arbitrary. It must not suffer from any vice of mala
fide, fraud or manipulation. However, no such allegation has
been made as regards the said recruitment process consisting
Page 43 of 52
of interview, by any of the unsuccessful candidates. As a result
of the said interview, the Appellants had been recommended
and appointed as Salesmen-cum-Clerk and the Peons-cum-
Chowkidar.
54. However, when it came to the final stage of
appointment after the recruitment process had undergone the
two most crucial stages of the recruitment process, when the
BOD had to take the decision to make the appointment, there
appeared to be certain loopholes as highlighted by the
Respondent nos. 6 and 7. That the official members of the
Board whose presence and concurrence was compulsory, were
not present. The core question, therefore, is whether such a
loophole of absence of the official members of the BOD as
pointed out by the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 is of such a nature
that it would vitiate the recruitment process and render the
appointment of the Appellants illegal.
55. In our opinion, the said deficiency i.e., absence of the
Inspector of Cooperative Societies Assistant Registrar of
Cooperative Societies and the Deputed Manager of HAFED
Page 44 of 52
whose presence is stated to compulsory as per Rule 3 would
not invalidate the entire recruitment process.
56. If we consider the recruitment process as a whole, the
entire recruitment process in the present case can be split up
into the three stages. The first stage consists of notification of
the vacancies by way of advertisement and inviting eligible
candidates for applying for the advertised posts. The second
stage consists of the manner of recruitment that is by way of
interview, and third stage is where the final appointment is
made by the Competent Appointing Authority.
57. As discussed above, as far as the two stages of
recruitment process are concerned i.e., advertisement and the
method of recruitment process, these do not suffer from any
fundamental defect which would render the appointments
illegal. It is only at the third stage when after the said two
stages are completed, the appointments are to be made be by
way of taking appropriate resolution by the Appointing
Authority, as the final stage.
58. As we have seen, Rule 3 mandates the presence and
concurrence of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society,
Page 45 of 52
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
Page 46 of 52
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.
59. We, 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
Page 47 of 52
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.
60. We are of the view that the third stage of the
recruitment process is severable and can be separated from
Page 48 of 52
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.
61. We have also noted that the Appellants had continued
in service for more than 10 years though on the strength of the
interim order of the High Court.
62. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that
interest of justice will be served if the decision taken by BOD
on 13.08.2014 is revisited as the defect is curable and not fatal.
The defect in the third stage will not have any bearing on the
first two phases of the recruitment process and thus invalidate
the entire process of recruitment in view of the fact that no
fundamental defect has been pointed out qua the first two
phases of the recruitment process.
Page 49 of 52
63. Accordingly, we direct that the Respondent co-
operative society to reconvene a meeting of the BOD to
reconsider the recommendation made by the selection
committee for appointment of the Appellants to the posts of
Salesmen-cum-Clerk, Peon-cum-Chowkidar in which meeting,
the non-elected official members namely, Assistant Registrar
of Cooperative Society, Inspector of Cooperative Society and
District Manager, HAFED, shall be present to examine
appointments to the advertised posts.
64. However, we make it clear that the reconvened BOD
shall not be entitled to re-examine the first two phases of the
recruitment process. Thus, it cannot examine as to whether
there was adequate publicity by way of advertisement or not,
as the same cannot be re-opened at this stage. In fact, there
was no adverse finding by any of the authorities as regards any
deficiency in the advertisement.
Similarly, as to whether any illegality of any mala fide,
fraud, or manipulation was committed in the interview
conducted, relating to the second phase of the recruitment
process also cannot be reopened, as no candidate nor the
Page 50 of 52
Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 had raised any objection in that
regard. There was also no observation by any of the
authorities/Court that the interview was not properly held or
that it was marked with fraud, manipulation etc.
The BOD shall, accordingly, take a fresh decision
regarding the third stage of the recruitment process by which
the Appellants were appointed, thus, it shall examine whether
the Appellants fulfilled the essential qualifications and did not
suffer from any disqualification and whether they were the
candidates who were indeed recommended for appointment on
the basis of the interview held and whether any eligible and
more meritorious candidates were ignored at the time of
making the appointments.
65. Accordingly, we allow this appeal by setting aside
impugned order dated 29.07.2025 with the direction to the
Respondent co-operative society to reconvene a meeting of the
BOD to take a fresh decision in terms of the directions given
above.
The said exercise shall undertake within one month
from today.
Page 51 of 52
66. The Appellants are stated to have been removed from
service by the Respondent authorities on 19.08.2025.
However, if the Appellants, on the basis of fresh
reconsideration by the BOD, are found to be eligible and not
found to be disqualified, the Appellants shall be re-appointed
to the respective posts and their past service shall be counted
for all purposes, but, they shall not be entitled to any arrears
of pay or allowance for the period they were out of service.
67. With the above directions, the appeal is allowed. The
impugned judgment dated 29.07.2025 passed by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana in LPA No. 1259 of 2024 (O&M)
is set aside.
Parties to bear their own cost.
Application(s), if any, pending shall stand disposed in
terms of the above directions and order.
……………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
………………………………………………J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
NEW DELHI;
JUNE 11, 2026.
Page 52 of 52