The Supreme Court has held that failure to satisfy a Public Post Recruitment Qualification specified in an advertisement cannot be overlooked while making an appointment. Appointing an ineligible person in disregard of advertised qualifications amounts to a fraud on the public, the Court said. It made the observation while upholding the cancellation of Sunita Lahu Panchpande’s appointment as an Anganwadi Supervisor in Maharashtra.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu dismissed Panchpande’s appeal against the Bombay High Court’s decision. The High Court had set aside her appointment as an Anganwadi Supervisor in Nashik district. It had also directed authorities to appoint the next eligible candidate from the waiting list.
Justice Datta, who authored the judgment, relied on the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Distt. Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi.
Appointment Contrary To Advertised Qualification
In M. Tripura Sundari Devi, the Supreme Court explained the importance of adhering to qualifications stated in recruitment advertisements.
The issue does not concern only the appointing authority and the selected candidate. Other qualified persons may have decided not to apply because they did not satisfy the advertised requirements.
The Court held that appointing persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances amounts to a fraud on the public. An exception may apply where the advertisement clearly states that the qualifications are relaxable.
The Court had also cautioned that courts should not become parties to the continuation of such practices.
Applying this principle, the Supreme Court found no infirmity in the Bombay High Court Division Bench’s judgment. It found no ground to interfere with the decision in its appellate jurisdiction.
The Bench also noted the High Court’s compassionate approach. The High Court had observed that Panchpande could be accommodated in Jalgaon district.
Nashik Zilla Parishad Recruitment
The dispute arose from recruitment for vacancies in the post of Anganwadi Supervisor.
The Nashik Zilla Parishad issued the recruitment advertisement on April 18, 2013.
The advertisement required candidates to possess at least 10 years of experience as an Anganwadi Sevika. It also restricted eligibility to Anganwadi Sevikes working in tribal or rural projects under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme in Nashik district.
Panchpande had worked as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district since February 1992. She therefore had more than 10 years of experience. However, she had never worked in Nashik district.
She secured the first position on the waiting list for an OBC-reserved vacancy.
Authorities later cancelled another candidate’s appointment. Following the cancellation, Panchpande received an appointment as Anganwadi Supervisor on March 4, 2014.
Gitanjali Sudhakar Shirsat Challenges Appointment
Gitanjali Sudhakar Shirsat stood second on the waiting list. She fulfilled the qualifications prescribed in the recruitment advertisement.
Shirsat challenged Panchpande’s appointment before the Bombay High Court.
The High Court found Panchpande ineligible for the post. Although she had the required length of experience, she had acquired it in Jalgaon district instead of Nashik district.
The High Court consequently set aside Panchpande’s appointment. It directed the State to appoint Shirsat in her place.
However, the High Court also observed that authorities could accommodate Panchpande as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district.
Divisional Commissioner’s Clarification
Before the Supreme Court, Panchpande relied on a clarification from the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik.
The Commissioner issued the clarification in November 2013.
According to that interpretation, the applicable 2001 Government Resolution did not require a candidate to acquire 10 years of experience in the same district.
The Zilla Parishad relied on this clarification when it appointed Panchpande.
The Supreme Court rejected the Commissioner’s interpretation.
Experience Had To Be From Same District
The Bench considered clauses 3, 5 and 16-A of the Government Resolution together. It concluded that candidates had to acquire the required experience within the same district.
The Court also held that the Divisional Commissioner could not issue a clarification contrary to the Government Resolution.
If the Resolution required clarification, authorities should have referred the issue to the appropriate department of the State Government.
The Court also examined the recruitment advertisement and the call letter issued to Panchpande.
Both expressly required a certificate proving 10 years of experience as an Anganwadi Sevika in Nashik district.
Appointment Created No Right To Continue
The Supreme Court held that the Zilla Parishad’s reliance on an erroneous clarification could not validate Panchpande’s appointment.
An appointment contrary to the recruitment advertisement did not give her a right to continue in the post.
The Court also rejected the argument that her service record justified protecting the appointment.
Panchpande had served for more than three years without any blemish. She had also not withheld any information.
However, these circumstances could not cure the defect in her appointment. She did not satisfy the eligibility conditions stated in the advertisement.
The Court also found no provision allowing relaxation of the essential Public Post Recruitment Qualification in question.
Supreme Court Upholds High Court Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s judgment and dismissed Panchpande’s appeal.
It also acknowledged the High Court’s compassionate direction allowing authorities to accommodate Panchpande in Jalgaon district.
The Court directed authorities to extend the benefits flowing from the High Court judgment to Gitanjali Sudhakar Shirsat, if they had not already done so.
Authorities must extend those benefits as early as possible and positively within two months.
The Court permitted Panchpande to complete any unfinished work by September 30, 2026.
After that date, she cannot continue as an Anganwadi Supervisor.
