She hid nothing, the mistake was the administration’s, and she had served without blemish for three years. Even so, the Supreme Court held that because she never met the eligibility condition in the first place, her appointment was a fraud on the public, on all those better-qualified people who did not apply because they knew they did not qualify. The rightful wait-listed candidate must now be appointed in her place. The Court did, however, leave her the accommodation the High Court had offered.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld the setting aside of the appointment of an Anganwadi Supervisor who did not meet the prescribed eligibility, holding that the appointment of an ineligible candidate, in disregard of the terms of an advertisement, amounts to a fraud on the public, even where the candidate concealed nothing and the fault lay with the appointing authority [Sunita Lahu Panchpande v. The District Collector and Others].
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, in a judgment authored by Justice Datta, dismissed the appeal against a Bombay High Court order that had cancelled her appointment and directed that the next wait-listed candidate be appointed instead.
The background
The appellant had worked as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district since 1992. In 2013, the Zilla Parishad, Nashik advertised for the post of Anganwadi Supervisor, requiring ten years’ experience as an Anganwadi Sevika, and stipulating, in one of eight instructions forming part of the advertisement, that only Sevikas currently working in tribal or rural projects under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme in Nashik district could apply.
The appellant, who had never worked in any project in Nashik but had over ten years’ experience in Jalgaon, applied, was selected, and placed at the top of the waiting list for the OBC-reserved vacancies. She was ultimately appointed in March 2014, on a vacancy created after another appointee was found ineligible and her appointment cancelled. The sixth respondent, fully qualified under the advertisement and placed second on the waiting list, challenged the appellant’s appointment; her representation went unconsidered, and she moved the High Court.
The Bombay High Court, in August 2017, found the appellant ineligible because her experience had been acquired in a district other than Nashik, set aside her appointment, directed that the sixth respondent be appointed in her place, and observed that the appellant might be accommodated as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
The erroneous clarification
The appellant’s defence was that her appointment followed a clarification issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik. After the merit and waiting lists were prepared, the Zilla Parishad had sought clarification on whether a Government Resolution of 2001 mandatorily required ten years’ experience in the same district. The Divisional Commissioner replied in November 2013 that no such same-district condition could be read into the 2001 GR, and on that basis the appellant was offered the post.
The Supreme Court held the clarification plainly wrong. A conjoint reading of the relevant clauses of the 2001 GR, it found, revealed an express requirement of ten years’ experience acquired in the same district, and the GR restricted candidates in one district’s selection list from being considered for the same post in another district. The Divisional Commissioner had erred in construing the GR, and, the Court held, could not have issued such a clarification at all; if any clarification was needed on a disputed question, he ought to have referred it to the Government in the appropriate department rather than resolve it himself contrary to the GR’s contents.
The Court added that the first of the eight instructions in the advertisement, requiring current work in Nashik district, itself sealed the appellant’s fate, since she was not even qualified to apply, and that the Zilla Parishad had been remiss in not scrutinising her credentials meticulously, which would have kept her out of the zone of consideration.
‘A fraud on the public’
The core of the judgment is its reaffirmation of a principle laid down in District Collector, Vizianagaram v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, which the Court quoted:
“…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… 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 that, the Court held that the appellant’s appointment, being in disregard of the advertisement, amounted to a fraud on the public by appointing an ineligible aspirant. The only window that could have saved it, an indication in the advertisement that the appointing authority reserved the right to relax an essential requirement, was not available here, no such relaxation having been shown. The High Court was therefore justified in interfering, even three years after the appointment.
The outcome, and a measure of compassion
Dismissing the appeal, the Court directed that the sixth respondent receive the benefits flowing from the High Court’s judgment, if not already extended, within two months. It gave the appellant time until September 30, 2026 to complete any unfinished work, after which she may not be continued on the post.
The Court noted, with evident approval, what it called the prudent and compassionate view of the High Court in observing that the appellant might be accommodated in Jalgaon district, that is, in the post she had lawfully held before the flawed promotion.
Why it matters
The principle the judgment enforces can seem harsh in an individual case, and this one is a good example: a woman who disclosed everything, was appointed through no manipulation of her own, and served without complaint for three years, nonetheless loses the post. The Court’s answer is that eligibility is not a private matter between the authority and the appointee. An advertisement’s qualifications define who may compete, and everyone who stayed away because they did not qualify is silently prejudiced when an ineligible person is nonetheless appointed. The fraud, in the law’s sense, is on that invisible class of would-be applicants, which is why the appointee’s good faith cannot save the appointment.
The ruling also draws a firm line around the power to “clarify” eligibility. A Divisional Commissioner, faced with a doubt about a Government Resolution, cannot resolve it by issuing a clarification that contradicts the Resolution; the proper course is a reference to the Government that framed it. An eligibility condition cannot be diluted by administrative fiat after the selection process has begun, and an appointment resting on such a dilution carries no vested right, however long the appointee has served. That discipline protects the integrity of every public recruitment against convenient after-the-fact relaxations.
Yet the judgment is not without humanity, and that too is instructive. The Court took care to preserve the appellant’s fallback to her original post, endorsing the High Court’s compassion. The message is not that a blameless appointee must be cast out entirely, but that she cannot retain a post she was never eligible for at the cost of the candidate who was. The rightful candidate, kept out for over a decade by an unlawful appointment, is the person the law ultimately vindicates here.
Case Title: Sunita Lahu Panchpande v. The District Collector and Others [Civil Appeal No. 6379 of 2023]
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: September 16, 2026 | Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1002
Order Under Challenge: Judgment of the Bombay High Court dated August 7, 2017
Status: Appeal dismissed. Appointment set aside; wait-listed candidate to be appointed. Appellant may be accommodated in her earlier post; given time till September 30, 2026 on the current post.