Gaurav Mehla & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Background
In 2014, the appellants were appointed as Clerk-cum-Salesman and Peon-cum-Chowkidar at a cooperative marketing society in Haryana, through a recruitment process that included a public advertisement and regulatory approval. Years later, their appointments were annulled by cooperative-society authorities on the ground that the Board of Directors' decision to appoint them had been taken without the mandatory presence and concurrence of three specified departmental officials (as required by amended Rule 3 of the applicable Service Rules), even though there was no allegation that the advertisement was defective, the interview process was unfair, or that the appellants themselves were ineligible. Both a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the cancellation, though the Division Bench allowed the appellants to compete afresh with age relaxation. The appellants, who had by then served over a decade (partly under interim court protection), appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the recruitment process had three distinct phases (advertisement, interview/selection, and the final Board of Directors' appointment decision) and that the third phase's procedural defect (absence of the official BOD members) was severable from, and did not taint, the first two phases, which were unimpeachable. It reasoned that the official members' role at the BOD stage was essentially supervisory (to verify the process was properly followed), so their absence made the defect curable rather than fatal to the entire recruitment. The Court held it would be unjust to penalise the appellants for an irregularity attributable solely to the authorities, especially given their decade of unblemished service. It set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the cooperative society to reconvene the Board within one month, with the required official members present, to take a fresh decision solely on the third stage (i.e., whether the appellants were qualified and properly selected), without reopening the advertisement or interview stages. If found eligible on reconsideration, the appellants were to be reinstated with past service counted for all purposes, though without back-pay for the period they were out of service.
Lesson Learnt
Not every procedural lapse by a recruiting authority renders an employee's appointment void. Where the defect is supervisory/administrative in nature, is severable from the substantively valid parts of the selection process, and is attributable to the authorities rather than the employee, courts will favour curing the defect over uprooting years of settled, unblemished service.