Appointment Contrary To Statutory Requirements And Advertisement Terms Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court

"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." Supreme Court, in a ruling dated September 16, 2026, held that an appointment made in violation of the specific eligibility criteria stipulated in an advertisement constitutes a "fraud on the public," justifying judicial interference even after the candidate has rendered years of service.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu observed that courts cannot be a party to the perpetuation of illegal appointments, especially when such actions prejudice the rights of qualified candidates who refrained from applying.

The matter arose from a challenge to the appointment of the appellant, Sunita Lahu Panchpande, as an Anganwadi Supervisor in Nashik district. Although the advertisement specifically mandated ten years of work experience as an Anganwadi Sevika within Nashik district, the appellant, who lacked this local experience, was appointed based on an erroneous administrative clarification issued by the Divisional Commissioner. The writ petitioner, a qualified candidate who was next in line on the waiting list, successfully challenged this appointment before the Bombay High Court, leading to the present appeal.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether an appointment made pursuant to an incorrect administrative interpretation of recruitment rules, which contradicts the express terms of a public advertisement, can be sustained. The Court was also tasked with determining the extent of judicial scrutiny applicable to appointments that have continued for several years without blemish.

Court Rejects Administrative Clarification Contravening Statutory Rules

The Supreme Court examined the Government Resolution of 2001 and the specific terms of the advertisement. The Court held that the Divisional Commissioner lacked the authority to issue a clarification that ran "wholly contrary" to the express requirements of the 2001 Government Resolution, which mandated ten years of experience in the specific district. The bench noted that if any doubt existed regarding the interpretation of the rules, the Commissioner ought to have referred the matter to the state government rather than issuing an erroneous directive.

Failure to Meticulously Scrutinize Credentials

The Court further observed that the Zilla Parishad was equally remiss in failing to conduct a meticulous scrutiny of the appellant's credentials. Had the authorities adhered strictly to the advertisement, the appellant would not have entered the zone of consideration, as she did not meet the fundamental eligibility threshold. The court emphasized that the validity of an appointment must be tested against the mandatory requirements set out at the inception of the recruitment process.

Appointment as Fraud on the Public

The bench applied the ratio from Distt. Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, emphasizing that such appointments prejudice other qualified aspirants. The Court ruled that where no power to relax essential qualifications is reserved in the advertisement, any appointment made in deviation thereof is invalid.

"Appointment of the appellant is not only in disregard of the terms of the advertisement; it does amount to a fraud on public by appointing an aspirant who is ineligible for the post."

In light of these findings, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's direction to appoint the writ petitioner in place of the appellant. Recognizing the humanitarian aspect of the matter, the Court permitted the appellant to be accommodated as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district. The state authorities were directed to extend all benefits to the successful candidate within two months, while the appellant was granted time until September 30, 2026, to conclude her pending work.

Date of Decision: 16 September 2026