Ineligible Appointment in Public Service Is Fraud On Public: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has affirmed that executive authorities cannot issue unauthorized clarifications to dilute mandatory selection conditions set out in public notifications. The Bench summed up that appointing candidates who lack prescribed eligibility criteria specified in recruitment advertisements constitutes a fraud on the public that courts cannot perpetuate. 

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu upheld a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court that set aside the appointment of an Anganwadi Supervisor for lacking the requisite district-specific work experience at the time of application.

Ineligibility and Appointment in public Service

The Supreme Court observed that the candidate's appointment was made in complete disregard of the mandatory instructions in the recruitment notification and the underlying administrative resolution. Relying on its precedent in Distt. Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, the Court reinforced that relaxing criteria without an explicit reservation of power to do so compromises public fairness.

The Bench emphasized that "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."

The Court issued the following directions:
"The sixth respondent shall be entitled to benefits flowing from the impugned judgment. If not already extended, the benefits thereunder be made available to her as early as possible but positively within 2 (two) months from date. 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."

Background

The dispute arose from a recruitment process initiated by the Zilla Parishad, Nashik, via an advertisement dated April 18, 2013, for the post of Anganwadi Supervisor. The advertisement and an underlying Government Resolution dated November 17, 2001, required applicants to possess ten years of work experience as an Anganwadi Sevika within Nashik District specifically.

The appellant, despite acquiring her ten-year experience in Jalgaon district rather than Nashik, applied for the post. Although she was placed on the waiting list under the OBC category, she was later appointed after the initial appointee's selection was cancelled. The Zilla Parishad proceeded with the appointment based on a clarification letter dated November 19, 2013, issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, which purported that the 2001 Government Resolution did not mandate experience within the same district.

The writ petitioner, who ranked second on the waiting list and possessed the required Nashik district experience, challenged the appointment before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The High Court quashed the appellant's appointment, directed the state to appoint the writ petitioner, and observed that the appellant could be accommodated as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district.

Dismissing the civil appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Divisional Commissioner had erred in his interpretation and lacked jurisdiction to alter the resolution's mandate. Conceding that the fault lay primarily with the appointing authority, the Apex Court found no legal ground to disturb the High Court's ruling.

Case Details:
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 6379 of 2023
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1002
Case Title: Sunita Lahu Panchpande v. The District Collector & Ors.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 7003