2026 Supreme(SC) 691

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Gaurav Mehla & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 8462 of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23061 of 2025)
Decided On : 11-06-2026

Procedural irregularities in the final stage of a multi-stage recruitment process that do not undermine the advertisement or merit selection are curable. Such defects do not invalidate the entire appointment if the process is severable and the appointees have served for a significant period without prior misconduct.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Co-operative Societies Act - Section 27 and 36 - Service Rules for Co-operative Societies - Rules 3, 4, 7, 14(a), 15, and 35 - Recruitment through public advertisement - Requirement of specific official presence in appointment meetings - Nature of procedural defect - Concept of severability in recruitment stages - Equity and long standing service. (Paras 2, 26, 38, 46, 52-60)

(B) Administrative Law - Recruitment Procedure - Procedural irregularity in final appointment stage - Where initial stages of recruitment, specifically advertisement and selection process, satisfy constitutional requirements of transparency and fair opportunity, a defect in the final meeting composition for appointment is considered a curable procedural lapse rather than a fatal violation rendering the process void ab initio. (Paras 55, 59-60)

(C) Equity and Service Law - Termination of Service - Where an appointment is challenged after a period of over a decade of unblemished service, and the only proven defect relates to formal meeting composition not attributable to the selected candidates, principles of proportionality and legitimate expectation dictate that the recruitment process should be rectified rather than entirely annulled, especially when the defect is severable and curable. (Paras 21, 61-62)

Facts of the case:
The case concerns individuals appointed to various posts in a co-operative body following a public advertisement and selection interview process. After over a decade of continuous service, the appointments were challenged on the grounds that the specific meetings where the appointments were formalized lacked the presence and concurrence of mandatory government-appointed observers required by the service rules. Lower authorities and the High Court set aside the appointments, treating the rule as mandatory and the absence of such officials as fatal. The appointees appealed to the Supreme Court.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the recruitment process consisted of three distinct stages: advertisement, selection, and final appointment. It found no defects in the advertisement or the conduct of the selection process. While the rule requiring third-party official attendance at the appointment meeting was salutary, failure to comply with it was a procedural irregularity and not a fundamental flaw. The court held that the third stage is severable, and the lack of official presence can be cured by a fresh meeting of the appointing body.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the requirement for official presence at the appointment meeting is mandatory or directory, whether its violation results in the appointment being void ab initio, and whether the appointment process is severable into distinct stages for the purpose of curing procedural defects without invalidating the entire recruitment.

Ratio Decidendi: Procedural requirements in recruitment involving internal meeting compositions are curable if the fundamental stages—such as public notice and merit-based selection—are conducted fairly and without fraud or manipulation. When candidates have rendered long years of continuous service, technical procedural defects that do not touch the root of the selection merit should not result in summary termination, provided the defect is severable and can be rectified by the authorities concerned.

Result: Appeal allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The co-operative body is directed to reconvene a meeting with the mandatory committee members to reconsider the appointments based on the original selection, without reopening the successfully conducted earlier stages of recruitment.