Their Jobs Were Cancelled Years Later Over Who Sat On The Panel
Clerks and peons appointed by a cooperative society had their appointments annulled because three departmental officers were not present when the decision was taken. The Supreme Court has put them back.
The Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the appellants be re-appointed to their posts, with past service counted for all purposes. An infraction of Rule 3 did not render an entire recruitment process illegal where the process — from advertisement and public notice onwards — suffered from no fundamental error or defect. They are not entitled to arrears of pay or allowance for the period they were out of service.
- Not every breach voids the whole process. A defect in the composition of the panel is not the same as a defect in the recruitment.
- The rest of the process was clean — advertisement, public notice and what followed — and that mattered.
- Past service counts for all purposes on re-appointment, which protects seniority and pension.
- But no back pay. The years out of service carry no arrears of pay or allowance.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Bench
- Justice N Kotiswar Singh, Justice Sanjay Karol
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 641
- Reported
- [2026] 7 S.C.R. 413
- Case
- CIVIL APPEAL/8462/2026
- Decided
- 10 June 2026
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; re-appointment directed with past service counted, without arrears
What happened
The appellants were appointed as Clerk-cum-Salesman and Peon-cum-Chowkidar by a primary cooperative society. Their appointments were later annulled on the ground that they had been made in violation of an amended Rule 3 of the Service Rules.
The complaint was about who was in the room: the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the Inspector of Cooperative Societies and the District Manager of the State cooperative federation were said to be required, and their presence and concurrence absent. The High Court affirmed the annulment.
Why the appointments were restored
The question the Court framed was whether an infraction of Rule 3 rendered the entire recruitment process illegal when the process did not otherwise suffer from any fundamental error or defect.
Looking at the whole exercise — beginning with the advertisement and public notice and running through what followed — the Court found no such fundamental flaw, and set the impugned order aside.
The relief was calibrated. The appellants are to be re-appointed and their past service counted for all purposes, but they get no arrears of pay or allowance for the period they were out.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can an appointment be cancelled long afterwards for a procedural lapse?
Not where the recruitment process is otherwise sound. The Court held a breach of Rule 3 did not render the whole process illegal and ordered re-appointment.
Do the lost years count?
Past service is counted for all purposes, but there are no arrears of pay or allowance for the period out of service.
Defending an appointment challenged years afterwards
- Separate the defect from the process. Show the advertisement, the notice and the selection steps were regular.
- Ask what the rule was for. A requirement about who attends is not the same as one going to merit or fairness.
- Press for past service to be counted for all purposes — it protects seniority and pension even where arrears are refused.
- Expect no back pay. Restoration without arrears is a common shape for this relief.
Source. Supreme Court of India, 2026 INSC 641, [2026] 7 S.C.R. 413, CIVIL APPEAL/8462/2026, decided 10 June 2026 by Justice N Kotiswar Singh, Justice Sanjay Karol. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks Supreme Court of India and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in