Appointment Ignoring Mandatory Eligibility Is Fraud On Public: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that an appointment made in disregard of mandatory qualifications prescribed in a recruitment advertisement amounts to a fraud on the public.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu said candidates who do not meet the stipulated eligibility criteria, including mandatory work experience in a particular district, are ineligible for the post. Their appointments can therefore be set aside to protect the rights of candidates who meet the prescribed qualifications, Court held.

Court also emphasised that a delegated authority or administrative official cannot issue a clarification that contradicts the express provisions of a statutory resolution. If there is any ambiguity or dispute regarding such a provision, the matter must be referred to the appropriate government department for clarification, Court stressed.

Court made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by Sunita Lahu Panchpande, whose appointment as an Anganwadi Supervisor in Nashik district was set aside by the Bombay High Court.

Why was Sunita Lahu Panchpande held ineligible for the Anganwadi Supervisor post?

Panchpande had been working as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district since February 1992. She applied for the post of Anganwadi Supervisor pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2013 and was appointed in March 2014.

The advertisement specifically stipulated that only Anganwadi Sevikes currently working in Tribal/Rural projects under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme in Nashik district could apply for the post.

The Bombay High Court, in its August 7, 2017 judgment, found that Panchpande did not satisfy this requirement as her experience had been acquired in Jalgaon district and not Nashik district.

The high court consequently set aside her appointment and directed the State of Maharashtra to appoint Gitanjali Sudhakar Shirsat, the writ petitioner before it and the sixth respondent in the Supreme Court appeal, as Anganwadi Supervisor in her place. It also observed that Panchpande could be accommodated as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district.

What did the 2001 Government Resolution require?

The Supreme Court noted that the Government Resolution dated November 17, 2001 required an aspirant for appointment as an Anganwadi Supervisor to have worked as an Anganwadi Sevika in the same district for 10 years.

The resolution further provided that if no vacant post was available in the project where the Anganwadi Sevika was working, she could be appointed against a vacant post in nearby projects. However, it restricted candidates figuring in the selection list of one district from being considered eligible for appointment to the same post in another district.

Panchpande contended that her appointment had been made by the Zilla Parishad after it sought a clarification from the Divisional Commissioner regarding the 2001 Government Resolution.

The Divisional Commissioner had clarified that there was no clear mention in the 2001 resolution that an applicant should be an Anganwadi worker having 10 years of experience under the Integrated Child Development Scheme while working within the same district.

The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation.

"This clarification given by the Divisional Commissioner utterly fails to consider the contents of the 2001 G.R. in the proper perspective," the Bench held.

Court said a conjoint reading of clauses 3, 5 and 16-A of the 2001 resolution clearly showed that the required 10 years of experience as an Anganwadi Sevika had to be acquired in the same district.

It held that the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, was therefore wrong in interpreting the resolution.

Could the Divisional Commissioner override the eligibility requirement?

The Supreme Court said he could not.

The Bench held that the Divisional Commissioner could not issue a clarification that ran "wholly contrary" to the contents of the 2001 Government Resolution.

"If any clarification of the nature issued by him, at all, was required, the said commissioner ought to have referred the disputed subject to the Government, in the appropriate department, for a clarification to be issued by it," Court said.

Court also found that the Divisional Commissioner had failed to consider the instructions for candidates contained in the advertisement and the call letter dated July 10, 2013 issued to Panchpande.

The Zilla Parishad was also at fault, the court said, as it failed to properly scrutinise Panchpande's credentials.

"Had there been a meticulous scrutiny, the appellant could not have crossed the threshold and enter the zone of consideration," the Bench said.

Appointment of ineligible candidate amounts to fraud on public

Court held that the Bombay High Court was justified in interfering with Panchpande's appointment.

It said her appointment was not merely in disregard of the terms of the advertisement but amounted to "a fraud on public" because an aspirant who was ineligible for the post had been appointed.

The Supreme Court, however, noted that an appointment could potentially be saved if the advertisement contained a provision reserving the appointing authority's right to relax an essential eligibility requirement.

In the present case, there was no such provision.

"We, therefore, entertain no doubt that the impugned judgment of the Division Bench does not suffer from any infirmity or vulnerability so as to warrant interference in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction," the Bench said.

Court also noted the "prudent and compassionate view" taken by the high court in observing that Panchpande could be accommodated in Jalgaon district.

Finding no merit in the appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed it and directed the authorities to offer the post of Anganwadi Supervisor to Shirsat within two months.

It also gave Panchpande time until September 30, 2026, to complete any unfinished work. Thereafter, she could not be continued on the post on which she had been working, Court ordered.

Case Title: Sunita Lahu Panchpande Vs The District Collector & Ors

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu

Date of Judgment: September 16, 2026