Appointment Disregarding Terms Of Advertisement Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court Reiterates

The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by special leave challenging a judgment and order passed by the Bombay High Court.

The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held, “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 the 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…”

Reference was made to the judgment in Distt. Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) wherein it has been observed that it amounts to a fraud on the public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxed. It has further been observed therein that no court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice.

Advocate Satyajit A Desai represented the Appellant while AOR Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant was working as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district since February 1992. An advertisement was published by the Zilla Parishad, Nashik calling for applications for various posts, including that of an Anganwadi Supervisor. The advertisement stipulated the qualifications the aspirants were required to possess. It was mentioned therein that an applicant must have work experience of 10 years or more as an Anganwadi Sevika. One of the important instructions forming part of the advertisement was to the effect that only Anganwadi Sevikes currently working in Tribal/Rural projects under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme in Nashik District could apply for the said post. The Appellant, though having never worked in any project in Nashik district but having work experience of more than 10 years in Jalgaon district, applied for the said post, was selected and appointed on the vacancy created by the cancellation of appointment of another candidate.

The sixth respondent, who otherwise was fully qualified in terms of the advertisement, figured at the second position of the waiting list. Finding that the appellant had been appointed, though she was not eligible, the sixth respondent submitted a representation to the official respondents challenging the appointment of the appellant. The High Court set aside the appointment of the appellant as an Anganwadi Supervisor in Nashik District and observed that the appellant may be accommodated as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that a clarification, in vernacular, was issued by the Divisional Commissioner in the light of the Government Resolution dated November 17, 2001 (2001 G.R) wherein it was mentioned that the District Selection Committee had selected a candidate at No.1 on the Waiting List and there was no clear mention in the Government Resolution dated 17th November 2001 (2001 G.R.) that the applicant should be an Anganwadi worker bearing 10 years of experience under Integrated Child Development Plan working within the same district.

On a perusal of clauses 3, 5 and 16-A of the 2001 G.R., the Bench noted that the express requirement of 10 years’ work experience as an Anganwadi Sevika had to be acquired in the same district. As per the Bench, the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, was in error in construing the 2001 G.R.

“Not only that, we have no hesitation to hold that the Divisional Commissioner could not have issued any such clarification that runs wholly contrary to the contents of the 2001 G.R. 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”, it added.

According to the Bench, the Divisional Commissioner failed to consider the instructions for the aspirants, which were part and parcel of the advertisement as well as the call letter dated July 10, 2013 issued to the appellant. It also required a certificate demonstrating 10 years’ work experience as an Anganwadi Sevika in Nashik district. “Significantly, the first of such 8 (eight) instructions quoted in paragraph 2 above, which is in line with the 2001 G.R., seals the fate of the appellant since she was not even qualified to apply for consideration of her candidature in the first place”, it stated.

The Bench held that the Zilla Parishad did not scrutinise the credentials of the appellant meticulously. “Had there been a meticulous scrutiny, the appellant could not have crossed the threshold and enter the zone of consideration”, it noted while also adding, “In fine, 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 of Anganwadi Sevika in Nashik district.”

Taking note of the compassionate view of the Division Bench that the appellant may be accommodated in Jalgaon district, the Bench dismissed the appeal. “Appellant is given time till 30th September, 2026 to complete unfinished work, if any. Thereafter, she may not be continued on the post on which she has hitherto been discharging service”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Sunita Lahu Panchpande v. The District Collector & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1002)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Satyajit A Desai, Pratik Kumar Singh, Sachin Singh, Shashank Upadhyay, AOR Anagha S. Desai

Respondent: AOR Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Advocates Nishant Sharma, Ankur Savadikar, Kartik Sharma, Raman Yadav, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Shrirang B. Varma, AOR Dilip Annasaheb Taur, Advocate Amol V Deshmukh

Click here to read/download Judgment