The Gaurav Mehla Supreme Court judgment revives the 2014 recruitment process conducted by the Thanesar Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society. The Court ruled that a procedural defect at the final stage could not invalidate an otherwise fair recruitment process. It directed the society to reconvene its Board of Directors and review the appointments within one month.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment on June 11, 2026, in Gaurav Mehla & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. The Court allowed the appeal filed by employees whose appointments had been cancelled after serving for more than ten years.
Background of the Dispute
The cooperative society initiated recruitment in 2014 to fill three Clerk-cum-Salesman posts and four Peon-cum-Chowkidar posts. It obtained approval from the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana before issuing advertisements on July 11, 2014.
The society conducted interviews on August 11, 2014. Two days later, the Board of Directors approved the selected candidates, who subsequently joined service.
Later, two society members challenged the recruitment under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. They alleged violations of recruitment rules, reservation norms, and advertisement requirements.
Their primary objection focused on the absence of the Assistant Registrar, Inspector Cooperative Societies, and District Manager of HAFED during the Board meeting that approved the appointments.
Proceedings Before the Authorities
The Additional Registrar held that the recruitment violated the applicable rules and set aside the appointments in June 2017.
The Additional Chief Secretary dismissed the appeals filed by the employees and the cooperative society.
The employees then approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench upheld the cancellation of appointments. However, the High Court permitted the employees to participate in future recruitment with age relaxation.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The appellants argued that they secured appointments through a transparent and merit-based process. They also contended that they had no role in any procedural lapse committed by the authorities.
Additionally, they pointed out that they had served continuously for over a decade and had crossed the age limit for fresh recruitment.
On the other hand, the respondents argued that the appointments violated mandatory statutory provisions and were void from the beginning.
The State of Haryana also supported the High Court’s decision and opposed interference.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Court observed that public recruitment must satisfy three essential requirements. Authorities must issue proper advertisements, conduct a fair selection process, and appoint candidates through the competent authority.
The Bench found no defect in the advertisement or interview stages. It noted that no allegation of fraud, manipulation, or selection of ineligible candidates had surfaced. Moreover, no unsuccessful candidate challenged the recruitment process.
The only defect arose during the Board meeting that formally approved the appointments without the presence of the officials required under Rule 3.
The Court held that these officials perform a supervisory function. Therefore, their absence alone could not automatically invalidate the appointments.
The Bench observed:
“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.”
The Court further held that the defect in the final stage was curable and did not affect the earlier stages of recruitment.
Final Directions
Relying on the Gaurav Mehla Supreme Court judgment, the Bench set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision.
It directed the cooperative society to reconvene its Board of Directors within one month. The meeting must include the Assistant Registrar, Inspector Cooperative Societies, and District Manager of HAFED.
However, the Board cannot reopen the advertisement or interview process. Instead, it may verify only whether the selected candidates possessed the required qualifications, whether they were genuinely recommended after interviews, and whether any more meritorious candidate had been overlooked.
Finally, the Court directed that eligible appellants should be reappointed with continuity of service. However, they will not receive arrears of salary or allowances for the period they remained out of service after August 19, 2025.
