The Supreme Court has held that an appointment to a public post made in disregard of the qualifications prescribed in the recruitment advertisement amounts to a fraud on the public, while upholding the cancellation of an Anganwadi Supervisor's appointment in Maharashtra.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu dismissed an appeal filed by Sunita Lahu Panchpande, who had challenged the Bombay High Court's decision setting aside her appointment as an Anganwadi Supervisor in Nashik district and directing the appointment of the next eligible wait-listed candidate.

Refusing to interfere with the impugned findings, the judgment authored by Justice Datta relied on the 1990 Supreme Court judgment of Distt. Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi to uphold the cancellation of the Appellant's appointment.

“…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.”, observed the Court in M. Tripura Sundari Devi.

“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. In fact, the prudent and compassionate view of the Division Bench is reflected from the impugned judgment when it observed that the appellant may be accommodated in Jalgaon district.”, the Court held.

The Court was dealing with Panchpande's appointment to one of the vacancies for Anganwadi Supervisors advertised by the Nashik Zilla Parishad on April 18, 2013. The advertisement required applicants to possess at least 10 years of experience as an Anganwadi Sevika and stipulated that only Anganwadi Sevikes currently working in tribal or rural projects under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme in Nashik district could apply.

Panchpande had been working as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district since February 1992. Although she had more than 10 years of experience, she had never worked in Nashik district. She was placed first on the waiting list for an OBC-reserved vacancy and was appointed on March 4, 2014, after the appointment of another candidate was cancelled.

Gitanjali Sudhakar Shirsat, who figured second on the waiting list and fulfilled the prescribed qualifications, challenged Panchpande's appointment before the Bombay High Court.

The High Court held that Panchpande was ineligible because her experience had been acquired in Jalgaon district rather than Nashik district. It set aside her appointment and directed the State to appoint Shirsat in her place, while observing that Panchpande could be accommodated as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district.

Before the Supreme Court, Panchpande argued that the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, had clarified in November 2013 that the applicable 2001 Government Resolution did not mandate 10 years of experience in the same district. The Zilla Parishad had relied on this clarification while offering her the appointment.

The Supreme Court rejected the Commissioner's interpretation, holding that a conjoint reading of clauses 3, 5 and 16-A of the Government Resolution made it clear that the required experience had to be acquired in the same district.

The bench further held that the Divisional Commissioner could not have issued a clarification contrary to the Government Resolution. Any need for clarification ought to have been referred to the appropriate department of the State Government.

The Court also noted that the recruitment advertisement and the call letter issued to Panchpande expressly required a certificate demonstrating 10 years of experience as an Anganwadi Sevika in Nashik district.

“Appointment of the appellant by the Zilla Parishad based on the erroneous clarification given by the Divisional Commissioner and contrary to the advertisement did not vest her with any right to continue on the post,” the Court held.

The bench rejected the argument that Panchpande's appointment should be protected because she had served for over three years without any blemish and had not withheld any information. It held that the appointment was contrary to the advertisement and that no provision permitting relaxation of the essential qualification had been shown.

While upholding the High Court's judgment, the Court acknowledged its direction that Panchpande could be accommodated in Jalgaon district as a compassionate measure.

The appeal was dismissed. The Court directed that the benefits flowing from the High Court judgment be extended to Shirsat, if not already done, as early as possible and positively within two months.

Panchpande was permitted to complete any unfinished work by September 30, 2026. Thereafter, she could not continue on the post of Anganwadi Supervisor.

Cause Title: SUNITA LAHU PANCHPANDE VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 947

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv. Mr. Pratik Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Shashank Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Vishwesh Shankar Gadage, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankur Savadikar, Adv. Mr. Kartik Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, AOR Mr. Amol V Deshmukh, Adv.