Compassionate appointment in Haryana rules

In Atul Chauhan v. State of Haryana, the Court examined the interplay of Rule 23(1) and Rule 5(1)(f)–(g) of the Haryana scheme governing compassionate benefits. It held that compassionate appointment cannot be kept in abeyance by invoking rules meant for financial assistance, reinforcing that such schemes must be applied in a manner that meaningfully addresses the immediate hardship caused by a government employee’s death.^[5]

Recruitment and procedural irregularities

In Gaurav Mehla v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court treated non‑compliance with certain composition requirements of the Board of Directors under the Haryana Service Rules as a curable procedural irregularity rather than a substantive illegality. It held that where advertisement and selection are otherwise fair and transparent, such defects do not render the recruitment void ab initio, and directed reconsideration of appointments by a duly constituted Board.^[5]