Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from a judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirming the annulment of appointments of the appellants, who were appointed in 2014 as Clerk-cum-Salesman and Peon-cum-Chowkidar in the Thanesar Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd., Kurukshetra. The appointments were made pursuant to a public advertisement and approval by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana. However, the authorities later annulled the appointments on the ground that they violated amended Rule 3 of the Primary Cooperative Marketing Societies Rules. The appellants had served for over a decade with unblemished records. The Supreme Court considered whether every procedural infraction renders an appointment void. The court held that the appointments were not void ab initio but voidable, and since the defects were attributable to the authorities and not the employees, and given the long service, the annulment was disproportionate. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and directed reinstatement of the appellants with continuity of service but without back wages.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment Irregularities - Void vs Voidable Appointments - Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 - The court examined whether appointments made pursuant to a public advertisement and approval by the Registrar, but allegedly in violation of amended Rule 3 of the Primary Cooperative Marketing Societies Rules, are void ab initio. Held that where employees have served for over a decade with unblemished records and the procedural defects are not attributable to them, the appointments cannot be annulled as void; they are at best voidable and may be regularized. (Paras 2, 30-45) B) Cooperative Societies - Recruitment - Approval by Registrar - Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 - The court considered the effect of the Registrar's approval granted before the amendment of Rule 3. Held that the approval, though subsequently found to be in violation of the amended rule, was a valid administrative act at the time, and the employees cannot be penalized for the authority's oversight. (Paras 15-25) C) Constitutional Law - Right to Livelihood - Articles 14, 21 of the Constitution of India - The court balanced strict adherence to statutory norms with the constitutional obligation to ensure fairness. Held that displacing employees after long service due to procedural defects not of their making would be disproportionate and violative of their right to livelihood. (Paras 40-50)
Issue of Consideration
Whether every infraction of a recruitment procedure necessarily renders an appointment void in law, especially when employees have rendered long years of unblemished service and the defects are attributable to the authorities.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned orders of the High Court and authorities set aside. Appellants to be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages.
Law Points
- Recruitment irregularities not attributable to employees
- long unblemished service
- substantial compliance
- fairness in public employment
- Haryana Cooperative Societies Act
- 1984
