New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that an appointment made ignoring the mandatory qualifications prescribed in an advertisement amounts to a fraud on the public, and such selections are liable to be set aside to prot…

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that an appointment made ignoring the mandatory qualifications prescribed in an advertisement amounts to a fraud on the public, and such selections are liable to be set aside to protect the rights of eligible candidates.A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu dismissed an appeal filed by Sunita Lahu Panchpande against a Bombay High Court judgment that had quashed her appointment as Anganwadi Supervisor in Nashik district. Supreme Court rejects CBI probe plea in 2013 UPPCL technician appointmentsIn its judgment on September 16, 2026, the court directed the authorities to appoint the original writ petitioner, Gitanjali Sudhakar Shirsat, to the post within two months.The appellant had been working as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district since February 1992. She applied for the post of Anganwadi Supervisor pursuant to a 2013 advertisement that restricted eligibility to Sevikas working in Tribal/Rural projects under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme in Nashik district. She was appointed in March 2014 after the Zilla Parishad obtained a clarification from the Divisional Commissioner.The High Court, in its August 7, 2017 order, found her ineligible under the terms of the advertisement and a November 17, 2001 Government Resolution, which required 10 years’ experience as an Anganwadi Sevika in the same district. It set aside her appointment and directed that the next wait-listed candidate be appointed, while observing that the appellant could be accommodated as a Sevika in Jalgaon district.Upholding the High Court, the Supreme Court ruled that a conjoint reading of the relevant clauses of the 2001 resolution clearly mandated district-specific experience. “This clarification given by the Divisional Commissioner utterly fails to consider the contents of the 2001 G.R. in the proper perspective,” the bench said.It emphasised that a delegated authority or administrative official cannot issue a clarification that contradicts the express provisions of a statutory resolution. If any ambiguity arose, the matter ought to have been referred to the appropriate government department rather than being resolved in a manner that bypassed the eligibility criteria.The court also faulted the Zilla Parishad for failing to meticulously scrutinise the appellant’s credentials. “Had there been a meticulous scrutiny, the appellant could not have crossed the threshold and enter the zone of consideration,” it observed.Holding that the appointment disregarded the terms of the advertisement, the bench said it amounted to “a fraud on public by appointing an aspirant who is ineligible for the post.” It noted that the only circumstance in which such an appointment could have been saved was if the advertisement had reserved a right to relax essential requirements—an indication that was absent.The court found no infirmity in the High Court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal. It granted the appellant time till September 30, 2026, to complete any unfinished work, after which she would not continue on the post.

Source: Deccan Herald