The Supreme Court has held that appointing a candidate in disregard of the mandatory eligibility criteria specified in an employment advertisement amounts to a “fraud on public,” affirming that authorities cannot bypass stipulated qualifications unless an explicit power to relax them is reserved. A Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu dismissed an appeal filed against a judgment of the Bombay High Court, which had quashed the appointment of an Anganwadi Supervisor in Nashik district on the ground that her prior 10 years of service had been rendered in another district.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Sunita Lahu Panchpande, had been serving as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district since February 1992. On April 18, 2013, the Zilla Parishad, Nashik, published an advertisement inviting applications for various posts, including that of Anganwadi Supervisor. The notification laid down specific eligibility conditions, including a mandatory requirement of 10 years or more of work experience as an Anganwadi Sevika. Crucially, Instruction No. 1 of the advertisement explicitly stipulated:
“(O)nly Anganwadi Sevikes currently working in Tribal/Rural projects under Integrated Child Development Services Scheme in Nashik District can apply for the said post”
Despite having served exclusively in Jalgaon district and possessing no work experience within Nashik district, the appellant applied for the post. She was selected and placed at No. 1 on the waiting list under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) quota. Following the cancellation of the appointment of one Lata Sanjay Kadam due to ineligibility, the Zilla Parishad appointed the appellant as Anganwadi Supervisor on March 4, 2014.
The sixth respondent, Gitanjali Sudhakar Shirsat, who held the second position on the waiting list and fulfilled all eligibility criteria, submitted a representation on April 9, 2014, against the appellant’s appointment. When the authorities failed to act, she moved the High Court of Judicature at Bombay through a writ petition. On August 7, 2017, the High Court set aside the appellant’s appointment, directed the State of Maharashtra to appoint the sixth respondent in her place, and observed that the appellant could be accommodated as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the appellant argued that after the merit and waiting lists were drawn, the Zilla Parishad, Nashik, had sought clarification on October 24, 2013, from the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, regarding the interpretation of Government Resolution (G.R.) dated November 17, 2001. The Divisional Commissioner issued a clarification on November 19, 2013, stating that the 2001 G.R. did not explicitly mandate that an applicant must have 10 years of experience within the same district.
The appellant contended that her appointment was made pursuant to this official clarification, that she had not suppressed any material information, and that her selection suffered from no patent illegality, particularly after she had discharged her duties as Anganwadi Supervisor for over three years without any blemish.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s contentions, noting that the 2001 G.R. explicitly mandated that an aspirant must have worked as an Anganwadi Sevika in the same district for 10 years and expressly barred candidates in the selection list of one district from being considered in another.
The Bench observed that the Divisional Commissioner had fundamentally misconstrued the Government Resolution:
“The above clarification given by the Divisional Commissioner utterly fails to consider the contents of the 2001 G.R. in the proper perspective. A conjoint reading of clauses 3, 5 and 16-A of the 2001 G.R. reveals the express requirement of 10 (ten) years’ work experience as an Anganwadi Sevika which had to be acquired in the same district. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, indeed, was in error in construing the 2001 G.R.”
The Court further held that the Divisional Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to issue an interpretation contrary to the G.R. and ought to have referred the issue to the appropriate government department. The Bench also faulted the Zilla Parishad for failing to scrutinize the appellant’s credentials against the terms of the advertisement and the call letter dated July 10, 2013:
“Had there been a meticulous scrutiny, the appellant could not have crossed the threshold and enter the zone of consideration.”
Addressing the broader legal principle, the Bench cited the decision in Distt. Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990), reiterating:
“It must further be realised by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice.”
Applying the precedent to the facts at hand, the Bench observed:
“Juxtaposed with the present case, the law laid down in the above text has full application here. Appointment of the appellant is not only in disregard of the terms of the advertisement; it does amount to a fraud on public by appointing an aspirant who is ineligible for the post. The only window through which the appellant’s appointment could be saved is, if there was an indication in the advertisement of the appointing authority reserving its right to relax any essential requirement. No such relaxation is shown to us to be available in the present case…”
Decision of the Court
Finding no infirmity in the judgment of the Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
The Court directed that all consequential benefits flowing from the High Court’s judgment be extended to the sixth respondent within two months. To prevent immediate administrative disruption, the Bench granted the appellant time until September 30, 2026, to complete any unfinished work, after which she cannot continue on the post of Anganwadi Supervisor. The Court maintained the High Court’s observation that she may be accommodated in Jalgaon district.
Case Title: Sunita Lahu Panchpande vs. The District Collector & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 6379 of 2023
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
Date: September 16, 2026
