Gaurav Mehla & Orsv.State of Haryana & Ors

Legal Analysis : Gaurav MehlA & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors

Citation: 2026 INSC 641

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Date of Decision: June 11, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 23061 of 2025 against the judgment dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in LPA No.1259 of 2024 (O&M).

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellants were appointed in the year 2014 as Clerk-cum-Salesman and Peon-cum-Chowkidar in a Cooperative Society in Haryana pursuant to a public advertisement and selection process. After more than a decade of continuous service, their appointments were annulled on the ground that the decision-making meeting of the Board of Directors on 13.08.2014 violated amended Rule 3 of the Service Rules, 2003, which mandated the compulsory presence and concurrence of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Inspector Cooperative Societies and District Manager, HAFED. The Additional Registrar and the Additional Chief Secretary upheld the challenge, and the High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that while Rule 3 is salutary and mandatory, its violation does not render the entire recruitment process void ab initio where the earlier stages (advertisement and interview) suffered no fundamental defect. The Court distinguished between the three stages of recruitment: (i) advertisement/public notice, (ii) selection process (interview), and (iii) final appointment decision by the Board. The defect in the third stage (absence of official members) was held to be curable and severable from the earlier stages. The Court directed the Cooperative Society to reconvene a meeting of the Board of Directors with the compulsory presence of the official members to reconsider the appointments without reopening the first two stages, and ordered reinstatement of the appellants with continuity of service (without arrears for the period out of service) if found eligible.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Gaurav MehlA & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 641

Civil Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23061 of 2025

Bench: Division Bench (Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh)

Date of Decision: June 11, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Judgment dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in LPA No.1259 of 2024 (O&M) affirming the judgment dated 22.04.2024 of the learned Single Judge in CWP No.23148 of 2017, which had upheld the orders of the statutory authorities annulling the appointments.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 – Section 27 (Registrar's power to examine legality of society's actions), Section 36 (acts of cooperative society not to be invalidated by certain defects – procedure, constitution, vacancy, etc.).

Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003 – Rule 3 (powers to make appointment vest with BOD; decision for appointment shall be taken in meeting where presence and concurrence of Assistant Registrar, Inspector and District Manager, HAFED is compulsory), Rule 4 (administrative powers of BOD), Rule 7 (recruitment procedure and reservation), Rule 14(a) (medical fitness certificate from Civil Surgeon), Rule 15 (manner of appointment – advertisement, record, interview, justification), Rule 35 (meeting of Managing Committee: three members form quorum).

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14 and 15 (equality and non-discrimination in public employment), Article 136 (special leave to appeal).

Haryana Cooperative Societies Rules, 1989 – Rule 29 (framing of service rules).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

State of U.P. v. Johri Mal (2004) 4 SCC 714 – Candidates have no role in administrative procedures of recruiting authority; penalising them for institutional lapses violates settled jurisprudence.

Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Kaila Devi (2018) 12 SCC 101 – Technical lapses not attributable to candidates are held non-fatal; doctrine of curability of procedural irregularities.

Ramjit Singh Kardam v. Sanjeev Kumar (2020) 20 SCC 209 – There can be no equity in favour of appointments made in violation of statutory recruitment rules (cited by respondents).

3. Relevant Facts

The Thanesar Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd., Kurukshetra (a cooperative society governed by the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 and the Service Rules, 2003) sought permission from the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana to fill 03 posts of Clerk-cum-Salesman and 04 posts of Peon-cum-Chowkidar. Permission was granted with the stipulation that recruitment be undertaken by issuing public advertisements in Hindi and English newspapers.

An advertisement dated 11.07.2014 was issued inviting applications. A corrigendum dated 30.07.2014 required applications in prescribed proforma. The Board of Directors constituted a Sub-Committee comprising the President, two Directors and the Inspector Cooperative Societies for processing the recruitment.

Interviews were conducted on 11.08.2014. On 13.08.2014, the Managing Committee/Board of Directors approved the appointments of the appellants on regular basis. The appellants joined service and continuously discharged duties from 2014 onwards. No allegation was ever made that the appellants lacked eligibility or qualifications, nor any allegation of fraud, impersonation, malpractice or manipulation against them personally.

The appointments were challenged by two members of the Cooperative Society (Respondent Nos.6 and 7) by filing Petition/Coop. No.05 of 2015 under Section 27 of the 1984 Act before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana. The principal challenge was based on amended Rule 3 of the Service Rules, 2003, which allegedly required the compulsory presence and concurrence of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Inspector Cooperative Societies and District Manager, HAFED at the meeting where appointment decisions were taken. It was admitted that these three officials were absent from the meeting dated 13.08.2014. Additional allegations included violation of Rule 14(a) (medical certificate from Civil Surgeon), advertisement defects, breach of sanctioned strength, non-compliance with reservation, and hurried finalisation.

The Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies (Stores), Haryana passed order dated 06.06.2017 holding that the recruitment process was contrary to Rule 3 and Rule 14(a), and set aside the resolution dated 13.08.2014 and the appointments. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Haryana, Cooperation Department dismissed the appeals on 29.09.2017, affirming the findings.

The appellants filed CWP No.23148 of 2017 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 22.04.2024, holding that Rule 3 was mandatory, the officials were admittedly absent, and the defect was fatal. The Single Judge granted liberty to the appellants to participate in future recruitment with age relaxation.

The Division Bench dismissed LPA No.1259 of 2024 on 29.07.2025, affirming the Single Judge.

The appellants then approached the Supreme Court.

4. Issues

Issue No. 1: Whether amended Rule 3 of the 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?

Issue No. 2: 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?

Issue No. 3: 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?

Issue No. 4: 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?

Issue No. 5: 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?

Issue No. 6: Whether the judgments rendered by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court warrant interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution?

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. Public employment recruitment has three distinct stages – advertisement/public notice, selection process, and final appointment decision – and a defect in the third stage does not necessarily vitiate the earlier stages

The Court held that the Cooperative Society partakes the colour of a public entity, and appointments are governed by statutory Service Rules. The three essential elements of public employment are: issuance of proper advertisement, conducting a fair and transparent selection process, and appointment by the competent authority. These are in consonance with Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. (Paras 38-40)

B. The advertisement in the present case was valid and suffered no fundamental defect

The advertisement dated 11.07.2014 was published in two newspapers (Indian Express and Aaj Samaj). Even though no specific last date was mentioned, the advertisement stated that applications were to be submitted within 21 days, which fixed the last date as the 21st day from the date of advertisement. There was no finding by any forum about any defect in the advertisement. The contention that the advertisement was published in the Delhi Edition of The Indian Express did not warrant consideration as there was no allegation that it was not circulated in Haryana or that eligible candidates were denied information. (Paras 40-41)

C. The selection process (interview) suffered no allegation of fraud, manipulation, or consideration of ineligible candidates

There was no allegation that any unqualified candidate was recommended or appointed, no allegation of fraud or manipulation in the interview process, no allegation that academic record, professional experience or general merit was not considered as required under Rule 15. No complaint from any eligible candidate about irregularities in the interview was made. (Paras 42-44)

D. Rule 3 is mandatory and salutary in nature, but its violation does not render the entire recruitment process void ab initio; the defect is curable and severable

The Court held that Rule 3 is mandatory – the presence and concurrence of the three official members is compulsory. The purpose of Rule 3 is salutary: the non-elected official members (Assistant Registrar, Inspector, District Manager) are better positioned to assess whether candidates fulfil requirements and whether recruitment rules have been strictly adhered to. Their role is supervisory in nature. However, even if their presence is compulsory, their absence does not render the appointments illegal because the defect is not fundamental to the recruitment process. The first two stages (advertisement and interview) were valid and unaffected. The third stage (appointment decision) is severable and can be rectified without disturbing the earlier stages. (Paras 52-60)

E. Section 36 of the 1984 Act and Rule 35 of the Service Rules support the view that procedural defects or defects in the constitution of committees do not automatically invalidate actions

Section 36 of the 1984 Act provides that no act of a cooperative society or committee shall be deemed invalid by reason only of any defect in procedure or in the constitution of the society or committee or any vacancy. Rule 35 provides that three members shall form a quorum for Managing Committee meetings. While Rule 3 being specific to appointments would prevail over Rule 35, the principle underlying Section 36 indicates that not every procedural infraction is fatal. (Paras 49-50)

F. Employees who have rendered long years of service without any fault on their part should not be made to suffer for institutional lapses attributable to the recruiting authority

The Court applied the principle from State of U.P. v. Johri Mal that candidates have no role in the composition of quorum or administrative procedures of the recruiting authority. Penalising them for institutional lapses violates settled jurisprudence. The appellants had no role in the absence of the official members. The defect was curable, and the Society could convene a fresh meeting with the official members present to reconsider the appointments. (Paras 49-50, 60-62)

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

First, the Court establishes a clear analytical framework for recruitment challenges: a recruitment process must be examined in three distinct stages – (i) advertisement/public notice, (ii) selection process (examination/interview), and (iii) final appointment decision by the competent authority. A defect in one stage does not automatically vitiate the other stages. The stages are severable.

Second, the Court holds that even a mandatory provision requiring the presence of specified officials at the appointment decision-making stage does not render the entire recruitment process void ab initio if the earlier stages were valid and the defect is not attributable to the candidates. Such a defect is curable by reconvening the meeting with the required officials.

Third, the Court clarifies that Section 36 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, which protects acts of cooperative societies from invalidation due to procedural defects, can be invoked to sustain appointments where the defect is not fundamental and does not go to the root of the matter.

Fourth, the Court reiterates that employees who have rendered long, continuous, and unblemished service should not be displaced on account of procedural irregularities over which they had no control, especially when no allegation of fraud, manipulation, or ineligibility is made against them.

Fifth, the Court distinguishes between "void ab initio" appointments and those suffering from curable irregularities. Even where a statutory provision uses the word "compulsory" or "shall", the consequence of non-compliance must be examined in light of the overall scheme, the purpose of the provision, and the prejudice caused.

7. Court's Examination and Analysis of Concepts

The Court first examined the nature of the Cooperative Society and the applicability of constitutional principles. It held that the Society partakes the colour of a public entity, and appointments must comply with Articles 14 and 15 – equal opportunity, public advertisement, fair selection, and appointment by competent authority.

The Court then analysed the three stages of recruitment. At the first stage (advertisement), it found that the advertisement was valid. The absence of a specific last date was not fatal because a 21-day period was clearly mentioned. The publication in the Delhi Edition of The Indian Express was not shown to have caused any exclusion of eligible candidates. There was no adverse finding by any authority on the advertisement.

At the second stage (interview), the Court noted that there was no allegation whatsoever of any irregularity. No complaint from any candidate, no allegation of fraud or manipulation, no allegation that ineligible candidates were considered, and no allegation that the selection committee failed to follow Rule 15 parameters. This stage was completely unchallenged.

At the third stage (appointment decision by BOD on 13.08.2014), the Court acknowledged that the three official members were absent, which violated the mandatory requirement of Rule 3. However, the Court examined the purpose of Rule 3 – the official members are meant to ensure that the recruitment rules have been strictly adhered to. Their role is supervisory and verificatory. The absence of these members did not mean that the recruitment process itself was flawed; it only meant that the verification step was skipped.

The Court then considered the applicability of Section 36 of the 1984 Act. While the respondents argued that Section 36 could not validate actions taken in direct contravention of mandatory rules, the Court held that the defect was one of procedure and composition of the committee, which fell within the scope of Section 36. The absence of the official members was a defect in the constitution of the committee (since the committee was not properly composed as per Rule 3) – such defects are expressly protected by Section 36 from automatic invalidation.

The Court also applied the doctrine of severability: the third stage could be separated from the earlier two stages without affecting the validity of the advertisement and interview. The BOD could reconvene with the official members present and reconsider the appointments based on the existing selection process.

The Court rejected the argument that continuation under interim orders could not create equity, but distinguished Ramjit Singh Kardam on the ground that in that case the appointments were made in complete disregard of the recruitment rules. Here, only the final approval stage suffered a defect; the substantive recruitment was valid.

Finally, the Court directed the Society to reconvene a meeting of the BOD within one month, with the compulsory presence of the Assistant Registrar, Inspector and District Manager, HAFED. The BOD was directed not to re-examine the first two stages (advertisement and interview) but only to verify whether the appellants fulfilled essential qualifications, whether they were the recommended candidates, and whether any more meritorious candidate was ignored. If found eligible, the appellants shall be re-appointed with continuity of service (past service counted for all purposes) but without arrears for the period they were out of service.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a significant contribution to service jurisprudence, particularly in the context of cooperative societies and public sector undertakings. It introduces a practical and nuanced framework for evaluating recruitment challenges – the three-stage analysis – which allows courts to distinguish between fundamental defects that vitiate the entire process and curable irregularities that can be rectified without displacing innocent employees.

The judgment strikes an excellent balance between the need for strict adherence to statutory recruitment norms and the constitutional obligation to protect legitimate expectations and livelihood of employees who have rendered long service without any fault. By holding that the defect in the third stage is severable and curable, the Court avoids the harsh consequence of invalidating a decade of service for a procedural lapse not attributable to the employees.

The reliance on Section 36 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act is particularly insightful. The Court correctly interprets that provision as a legislative recognition that not every procedural or compositional defect should invalidate the acts of cooperative societies. This interpretation prevents hyper-technical challenges from destabilising legitimate administrative actions.

The Court's observation that the official members' role is supervisory, and that their absence does not mean the recruitment itself was flawed, is a pragmatic approach. It recognises the reality that in many cooperative societies, official members may be unavailable due to leave or other reasons, and that a rigid interpretation would paralyse the functioning of such societies.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not explicitly overrule or distinguish Ramjit Singh Kardam v. Sanjeev Kumar, where this Court held that there can be no equity in favour of appointments made in violation of statutory recruitment rules. While the Court notes that Ramjit Singh was cited by the respondents, it does not engage with it deeply. Future litigants may argue that this judgment creates an exception without clearly defining its limits. The Court could have clarified that the distinction lies in whether the violation goes to the root of the recruitment (e.g., no advertisement, fraudulent selection, ineligible candidates) or is a procedural irregularity at the final approval stage.

Another concern is the direction that the appellants shall not be entitled to arrears for the period they were out of service. This appears to penalise the appellants for the delay caused by the litigation, even though they were removed by the authorities and then reinstated by court order. A more equitable approach might have been to grant full back wages or at least a percentage, given that they were not at fault. However, the Court's direction to count past service for all purposes (presumably including pension, seniority, and leave) mitigates this concern to some extent.

The judgment also does not address the issue of Rule 14(a) (medical certificate from Civil Surgeon). The Court held that the primary defect was Rule 3, and the Rule 14(a) issue was at best curable. However, it did not explicitly direct the Society to rectify that as well. This may leave a lingering ground for challenge.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited in all cases where public employees face termination on account of procedural irregularities in the recruitment process, especially when they have served for a substantial period without any personal fault. High Courts and Tribunals will now apply the three-stage framework to determine whether a defect is fundamental or curable. The judgment will also provide strong ammunition to employees in cooperative societies to invoke Section 36 (or analogous provisions in other State Cooperative Societies Acts) to protect their appointments from being invalidated on technical grounds. Conversely, recruiting authorities will be put on notice that they must ensure the presence of mandatory officials at appointment decision meetings, but a failure to do so may be curable rather than fatal.

9. Final Outcome

The Civil Appeal was allowed.

The impugned judgment dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in LPA No.1259 of 2024 (O&M) was set aside.

The Court issued the following directions:

The Respondent Cooperative Society shall reconvene a meeting of the Board of Directors within one month from the date of the judgment to reconsider the recommendation made by the selection committee for appointment of the appellants to the posts of Salesman-cum-Clerk and Peon-cum-Chowkidar.

In the reconvened meeting, the non-elected official members – namely, the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Society, the Inspector of Cooperative Society, and the District Manager, HAFED – shall be present to examine the appointments to the advertised posts.

The reconvened BOD shall not be entitled to re-examine the first two phases of the recruitment process: (i) the advertisement/public notice, and (ii) the interview process. Those stages cannot be reopened.

The BOD shall examine whether the appellants fulfilled the essential qualifications, did not suffer from any disqualification, were indeed the candidates recommended on the basis of the interview held, and whether any eligible and more meritorious candidate was ignored at the time of making the appointments.

If the appellants, on the basis of fresh reconsideration by the BOD, are found to be eligible and not disqualified, the appellants shall be re-appointed to the respective posts. Their past service shall be counted for all purposes (continuity of service), but they shall not be entitled to any arrears of pay or allowance for the period they were out of service.

The appellants were stated to have been removed from service on 19.08.2025. The direction for reconsideration and potential re-appointment applies accordingly.

Parties to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

10. Practical Application

First, when challenging a public recruitment, courts and litigants must distinguish between three stages: advertisement, selection process, and final appointment decision. A defect in one stage does not automatically invalidate the others. If the advertisement and selection process were valid, a defect in the final approval stage (such as absence of mandatory officials) may be curable rather than fatal.

Second, for employees facing termination due to procedural irregularities in recruitment, the first line of defence is to demonstrate that the irregularity does not go to the root of the recruitment. They should show that: (i) the advertisement was proper and widely published; (ii) the selection process was fair, transparent, and free from fraud or manipulation; (iii) they were eligible and qualified; (iv) no complaint was made by any unsuccessful candidate; and (v) they have rendered long, continuous, and unblemished service. If these conditions are met, courts may treat the defect as curable.

Third, for cooperative societies and public sector undertakings, the judgment clarifies that while Rule 3 (or analogous provisions requiring presence of official members) is mandatory, a failure to comply does not automatically invalidate appointments. The society can convene a fresh meeting with the required officials to ratify or reconsider the appointments. However, the society should not routinely ignore such provisions, as repeated violations may invite disciplinary action against officials.

Fourth, Section 36 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act (or similar provisions in other States) can be invoked to protect acts of the society from being invalidated solely on account of procedural defects, defects in constitution of the committee, or vacancies. This is a powerful tool for employees to resist challenges based on hyper-technical grounds.

Fifth, for legal practitioners advising employees, the judgment provides a strong precedent for seeking reinstatement with continuity of service even if the recruitment suffered from a procedural irregularity, provided the irregularity was not attributable to the employee and the substantive recruitment was valid. The direction to count past service for all purposes (even without arrears) protects pension, seniority, and leave entitlements.

Sixth, for courts adjudicating such matters, the judgment mandates a proportionality analysis: the consequence of invalidation must be proportionate to the gravity of the defect. If the defect is curable and the employee is innocent, the court should prefer a remedy that cures the defect rather than terminating the employee.

11. Court Lines

Line 1 (Three stages of recruitment – Para 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 ... had been marked by fraud or manipulation ... or if the recruiting authority had considered ineligible candidates, the same can lead to invalidation of the recruitment process ... However, no such allegation has been made as regards the said recruitment process consisting of these two stages."

Line 2 (Purpose of Rule 3 – Para 58):

"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 ... Their presence is to ensure that the recruitment rules have been strictly adhered to in making the appointment ... Their role is essentially supervisory in nature."

Line 3 (Defect in third stage is curable and severable – Para 60):

"We 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."

Line 4 (Employees not to suffer for institutional lapses – Para 50):

"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."

Line 5 (Section 36 protects against procedural defects – Para 49-50):

"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 ... Thus, ... 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."

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For an employee facing termination due to procedural irregularities in recruitment:

First, immediately examine whether the recruitment had three stages and identify which stage contains the alleged defect. If the defect is only at the final appointment decision stage (e.g., improper quorum, absence of mandatory members, procedural lapse in the meeting), argue that the defect is curable and severable. Rely on this judgment to demonstrate that the earlier stages (advertisement and selection) remain valid.

Second, collect evidence that the advertisement was properly published and that you applied in response to it. Show that the selection process was fair – no allegation of fraud, manipulation, or favouritism. If possible, produce the selection records or interview marks.

Third, demonstrate that you have rendered long, continuous, and unblemished service. Highlight that no complaint was ever made about your eligibility, qualifications, performance, or conduct. If the challenge was brought by a non-competitor (e.g., a member of the society rather than an unsuccessful candidate), emphasise that no affected candidate ever complained.

Fourth, invoke Section 36 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act (or analogous provisions in your State) to argue that procedural defects or defects in the constitution of the committee should not invalidate the act of appointment.

Fifth, if the authorities have already terminated you, seek reinstatement with continuity of service. Be prepared to accept a direction that you may not get arrears for the period out of service, but insist on counting past service for pension, seniority, and leave.

For a recruiting authority (cooperative society or public sector undertaking) defending its recruitment:

If a challenge is made on the ground of absence of mandatory officials at the appointment meeting, do not immediately concede that the appointments are void. Instead, convene a fresh meeting with the required officials as soon as possible. Ratify or reconsider the appointments. This judgment expressly permits such curative action. Document the fresh meeting and the presence of all mandatory officials.

If the challenge is already in litigation, propose to the court a direction to reconvene the meeting with the required officials as a remedy, rather than annulling the appointments. This judgment provides a template for such a direction.

For a person challenging a recruitment (e.g., a member of the society or an unsuccessful candidate):

Focus on fundamental defects that go to the root of the recruitment – lack of proper advertisement (e.g., no public notice, restricted circulation), fraud or manipulation in the selection process, consideration of ineligible candidates, or violation of reservation rules. These are not curable under this judgment. Avoid relying solely on procedural defects at the final approval stage, as those may be curable. If the only defect is the absence of mandatory officials, be prepared for the court to direct a fresh meeting rather than quashing the appointments.

For a High Court judge adjudicating such a matter:

First, determine whether the recruitment process is severable into stages. Identify the stage at which the alleged defect occurred. If the defect is at the final appointment stage and the earlier stages are valid, consider whether a direction to reconvene the meeting with the required officials would be an appropriate remedy, rather than annulling the entire recruitment.

Second, examine whether the defect is fundamental or procedural. If the defect is that no advertisement was issued or that the selection was fraudulent, the recruitment is void ab initio. If the defect is that the appointing authority was not properly constituted or that mandatory officials were absent, the defect is curable.

Third, consider the length of service rendered by the employees. If they have served for a substantial period (e.g., more than five years) without any allegation of personal fault, the balance of justice favours curing the defect rather than terminating them.

Fourth, invoke Section 36 of the Cooperative Societies Act (or analogous provisions) to protect the acts of the society from invalidation on purely procedural grounds. The legislative intent behind such provisions is to prevent hyper-technical challenges from disrupting the functioning of cooperative societies.