GAURAV MEHLA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The present appeal presents an important question concerning the delicate balance between strict adherence to statutory recruitment norms and the constitutional obligation of courts to ensure fairness where employees, appointed through a duly initiated public selection process and having rendered long years of unblemished service, face the prospect of displacement on account of procedural defects allegedly attributable not to them but to the authorities conducting the recruitment. At its core, the controversy compels this Court to examine whether every infraction of a recruitment procedure necessarily renders an appointment void in law.

(3.) The present proceedings arise out of the judgment and final order dtd. 29/7/2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No.1259 of 2024 (O&M), whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has affirmed the judgment dtd. 22/4/2024 rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.23148 of 2017 and consequently, declined to interfere with the administrative and quasi-judicial orders passed by the authorities under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. By virtue of the aforesaid judgments and orders, the appointments of the present Appellants, who were appointed in the year 2014 to the posts of Clerk-cum-Salesman and Peon-cum-Chowkidar in the Thanesar Cooperative Marketingcum- Processing Society Ltd., Kurukshetra (for short "cooperative society") pursuant to a recruitment process initiated after issuance of public advertisement and grant of approval by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana came to be annulled on the ground that the appointment was allegedly made in violation of amended Rule 3 of the Primary Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies Limited Staff Service Rules, 2003 (for short "Service Rules, 2003"). The High Court, while affirming the orders dtd. 6/6/2017 passed by the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies (Stores), Haryana, and 29/9/2017 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government Haryana, Cooperation Department, held that the appointments had not been made in conformity with the mandatory statutory requirement concerning the presence and concurrence of specified departmental authorities i.e. Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, the Inspector (Cooperative Societies) and District Manager, Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (HAFED), at the time of taking the decision to appoint, and therefore could not be sustained in law. Nevertheless, taking note of the fact that the Appellants had remained in continuous service since the year 2014 and had crossed the prescribed upper age limit during the pendency of litigation, the Division Bench granted liberty to the Appellants to participate in any future recruitment process and further directed that they be accorded appropriate age relaxation whenever fresh recruitment is undertaken by the Respondent Society.