THE BEYOND OBITER LAW BLOG: Legal News
2 min read
The Supreme Court has held that a procedural defect occurring at the final stage of a recruitment process cannot automatically invalidate appointments where the recruitment was otherwise conducted fairly, transparently, and in accordance with law. The Court observed that employees who were selected through a valid recruitment process and had rendered long years of service should not be made to suffer for irregularities attributable to the authorities.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh.
The case concerned seven employees appointed in 2014 as Clerk-cum-Salesmen and Peon-cum-Chowkidars in a Haryana cooperative society through a publicly advertised recruitment process. Their appointments were subsequently invalidated on the ground that the Board of Directors had approved the appointments without the presence and concurrence of certain officials mandated under Rule 3 of the Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 2003.
Examining the recruitment process, the Court divided it into three stages: advertisement of vacancies, selection of candidates, and final approval by the Board of Directors. It found no irregularity in the first two stages. Vacancies had been duly advertised, eligible candidates were given an equal opportunity to participate, and there were no allegations of fraud, favouritism, mala fides, manipulation, or appointment of ineligible candidates.
The Court observed that the challenge was confined solely to the third stage - the approval of appointments by the Board of Directors. While Rule 3 required the presence and concurrence of specified officials during meetings concerning appointments, the Court held that their role was primarily supervisory and intended to ensure compliance with recruitment norms.
Distinguishing between substantive illegality and procedural irregularity, the Bench held that defects such as absence of advertisement, denial of equal opportunity, appointment of ineligible candidates, or a recruitment process tainted by fraud would strike at the root of the recruitment and render it invalid. However, non-compliance with Rule 3 at the stage of final approval constituted only a procedural lapse.
The Court held that the defect was confined to the final stage of the recruitment process and was severable from the earlier stages, which had been conducted fairly and transparently.
"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 Bench further observed that the employees had no role in the procedural irregularity and had served for more than a decade without any allegation regarding their eligibility, conduct, or integrity. In such circumstances, it would be unfair to deprive them of their employment for a lapse attributable to the authorities.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the orders passed by the statutory authorities. It directed the cooperative society to reconvene a meeting of the Board of Directors with the presence of the Assistant Registrar, Inspector Cooperative Societies, and District Manager (HAFED) and reconsider the appointments in accordance with the applicable rules.
The Court clarified that only the final approval stage could be revisited and that the validity of the advertisement and selection process could not be reopened. It further directed that if the employees are found eligible and not otherwise disqualified upon reconsideration, they shall be reappointed with continuity of service for all purposes, though they would not be entitled to back wages for the period they remained out of service.