Appointment Against Advertisement Terms Is a Fraud on Public, Supreme Court Holds in Anganwadi Supervisor Case

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu dismisses an Anganwadi Supervisor's appeal, holding her appointment void for violating the express district-experience requirement and finding that a Divisional Commissioner's contrary clarification carried no legal weight.

The Supreme Court on 16 September 2026 dismissed a civil appeal filed by Sunita Lahu Panchpande, who had been appointed as an Anganwadi Supervisor in Nashik District, Maharashtra, despite never having worked as an Anganwadi Sevika in Nashik. The Court, in Sunita Lahu Panchpande v. The District Collector & Ors. (2026 INSC 1002), held that her appointment was made in disregard of both the advertisement and a Government Resolution dated 17 November 2001, and that it “does amount to a fraud on public.” The bench found that a clarification issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, which had formed the basis of her appointment, was wholly contrary to the Government Resolution and therefore of no legal consequence. The sixth respondent, Gitanjali Sudhakar Shirsat, who was second on the waiting list and fully qualified, is to receive the benefits of the Bombay High Court's order within two months.

How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court

Panchpande had been working as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district since February 1992. In April 2013, the Zilla Parishad, Nashik published an advertisement for the post of Anganwadi Supervisor. One of eight express instructions in the advertisement stated that only Anganwadi Sevikas currently working in Tribal or Rural projects under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme in Nashik District could apply.

Panchpande applied despite having worked exclusively in Jalgaon. She was selected and placed at number one on the waiting list for OBC-category vacancies. When Lata Sanjay Kadam, who had been appointed on 29 July 2013, was found ineligible and her appointment cancelled, Panchpande was offered the vacancy and appointed on 4 March 2014.

Gitanjali Shirsat, who was second on the waiting list and met all qualifications, submitted a representation on 9 April 2014 challenging Panchpande's appointment. That representation was not acted upon. Shirsat then filed Writ Petition No. 5740 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the petition on 7 August 2017, set aside Panchpande's appointment, directed the State of Maharashtra to appoint Shirsat in her place, and observed that Panchpande may be accommodated as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district. Panchpande challenged that judgment before the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 6379 of 2023.

The Clarification That Was Argued to Save the Appointment

Panchpande's counsel argued that the Zilla Parishad, Nashik had itself sought a clarification from the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik on 24 October 2013, asking whether the Government Resolution dated 17 November 2001 imposed, as a mandatory requirement, ten years of work experience as an Anganwadi Sevika in the same district. The Divisional Commissioner replied on 19 November 2013 that no such same-district condition could be read into the 2001 Government Resolution, and that appointments could be offered from the merit and waiting lists in terms of the qualifications stipulated in the advertisement.

It was on the strength of this clarification that the Zilla Parishad offered appointment to Panchpande. Counsel contended that her appointment, having been made after this clarification, did not suffer from any illegality, and that it was unjust to disturb it more than three years after she had been discharging service without any adverse record.

The Court's Reading of the 2001 Government Resolution

The Court read the 2001 Government Resolution closely. It found that a conjoint reading of clauses 3, 5 and 16-A of that Resolution revealed an express requirement of ten years' work experience as an Anganwadi Sevika, and that such experience had to be acquired in the same district. The Resolution further provided that if no vacant post existed in the project in which the Anganwadi Sevika was working, she could be given appointment on a vacant post in a nearby project—but it restricted candidates in the selection list of one district from being treated as eligible for appointment on the same post in another district.

The Court examined the translated text of the Divisional Commissioner's clarification letter, particularly paragraph 4, which acknowledged that six candidates in the selection process had experience of working as Anganwadi Sevikas outside Nashik District and that Panchpande was one of them. The Commissioner had nonetheless concluded that the Government Resolution did not clearly require same-district experience. The Court rejected that reading. It held that the Divisional Commissioner “utterly fails to consider the contents of the 2001 G.R. in the proper perspective” and was plainly in error.

More broadly, the Court held that the Divisional Commissioner had no authority to issue a clarification that ran wholly contrary to the Government Resolution. If any clarification was required on a disputed point, the Commissioner ought to have referred the matter to the appropriate department of the Government for a clarification to be issued at the governmental level. The unilateral clarification, therefore, carried no legal force.

Advertisement Instructions and Ineligibility at the Threshold

Beyond the Government Resolution, the Court also pointed to the advertisement itself. The first of the eight instructions expressly required that only Anganwadi Sevikas currently working in Nashik District projects could apply. The call letter issued to Panchpande on 10 July 2013 similarly required a certificate demonstrating ten years' work experience as an Anganwadi Sevika in Nashik district.

Panchpande had acquired all her experience in Jalgaon. The Court found that she was not even qualified to apply in the first place. The Zilla Parishad, the Court said, was equally at fault for failing to scrutinise her credentials at the stage of considering her candidature. Had it done so, she could not have entered the zone of consideration.

The Court concluded that the appointment was void not merely because of an administrative error but because it was made in disregard of express eligibility conditions. This had consequences for all other candidates who met the qualifications and either applied or chose not to apply because they lacked the advertised credentials.

Application of M. Tripura Sundari Devi

The Court relied on the decision in Distt. Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655, where the Court had observed that when an appointment is made in disregard of a qualification mentioned in an advertisement, those aggrieved are not only the other applicants but also those who did not apply because they did not possess the stipulated qualifications. The Court in that case had said that appointing persons with inferior qualifications amounts to a fraud on the public unless the advertisement clearly states that qualifications are relaxable.

Applying that ratio, the Court held that the same principle governed Panchpande's case. Her appointment was not only in disregard of the advertisement; it also amounted to a fraud on the public. The one window through which it could have been saved was a clause in the advertisement reserving the appointing authority's right to relax essential requirements. No such provision existed. The High Court, the Supreme Court held, was justified in interfering.

Order

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in its entirety. The Court directed that the sixth respondent, Gitanjali Shirsat, shall be entitled to the benefits flowing from the High Court's judgment. If those benefits had not yet been extended, they were to be made available as early as possible and positively within two months from 16 September 2026.

Panchpande was given time until 30 September 2026 to complete any unfinished work. After that date, she is not to be continued on the post of Anganwadi Supervisor. The Court noted that the High Court's direction allowing for her accommodation as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district reflected a prudent and compassionate approach. Any connected applications were directed to stand disposed of.