On 16th September 2026, Supreme Court held that an appointment of a candidate made in disregard of the minimum qualification which were advertised, amounts to a fraud on public unless a clear relaxation of qualification is not stated.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu ruled that the appointment of candidates who did not meet the minimum qualification advertised, can therefore be set aside to protect the rights of the candidates who meet the qualifications. The Court also held that a delegated authority or administrative discretion cannot override a statutory provision. If any contradictions arise the matter should be referred to the appropriate government department for further clarification.
Facts of the case
The appellant in this case was serving as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon District since 1992. An advertisement by Nashik Zilla Parishad, dated 18th April 2013 called for applications for Anganwadi Supervisors in the said district. The qualifications required for the post were:
- An applicant to have 10 years of work experience as an Anganwadi Sevika
- One of the eight important instructions of the advertisement was this: the Anganwadi Sevika working in tribal / rural projects under Integrated Child Development Service Scheme in Nashik District can apply to the post.
Subsequent to this the appellant was appointed to the post of Anganwadi Supervisor. This appointment was challenged by the sixth respondent who was fully qualified to the post, on the grounds that she had gained experience in another district and not Nashik. This was upheld by a division bench of the Bombay High Court, which further recorded that the fault was in the appointing authority for misinterpreting the notification when appointing the appellant. This was subsequently challenged by the appellant before the Supreme Court.
Courts reasoning and why it matters to you
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, observing and following the decision of M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655. The eligibility criteria explicitly barred her from the post as she had gained experience in Jalgaon and the post required the service in Nashik District. The Court further held that the District Collector had misread the G. R. and could not have issued a clarification which was contrary to the mandatory requirements of the post as advertised unless any explicit relaxation said so. The Court also treated such appointments a fraud on public as it was made in disregard of the advertised qualifications.
| Condition | Advertisement’s requirement | The appellant’s position |
| Experience | 10 years or more as an Anganwadi Sevika | More than 10 years (since February 1992) |
| Place of experience | Currently working in Tribal/Rural projects in Nashik District | Worked only in Jalgaon district |
| Relaxation clause | None shown in the advertisement | Could not be invoked |
| Basis of appointment | Eligibility under the advertisement and the 2001 G.R. | clarification of 19 November 2013 |
what is G.R. ?
A Government Resolution is a form in which Maharashtra’s State Government issues its policy decisions, schemes and conditions of service. It is an executive instruction but is not based out of a statute. It binds the departments and authorities that implement the scheme and it can fill the gaps where no statutory recruitment rules exist. A G. R. can supplement the rules but cannot be overridden by any officer’s own interpretation. This was ruled in this case.
how can this judgement help you?
If you are a qualified candidate who was passed over for apointment
this judgement can help you challenge a wrong appointment in the following ways:
- If someone who did not meet the minimum qualification and standard stated in an eligibility notification / advertisement, and was subsequently appointed in the position, the Court has held it as fraud on public;
- If the position of giving a wrong appointment was due to a misreading by an official, the Court shall hold it as a fault of the authority concerned and the appointment can be challenged;
- Act quickly and do not delay such a challenge; the sixth respondent filed her representation within five weeks of such appointment and then filed a Writ Petition when such representation was not considered;
The waiting list position would matter. The sixth respondent was the second in the waiting list prior to appointment and was fully qualified with the minimum qualification, hence the Court upheld the relief in her favour.
If you are an appointed candidate and your eligibility is questioned
- Good faith and clean service will not be considered here. The issue arises from a question of eligibility of service, not from conduct in the service. The appellant had served about three years without any question on her service, but the Court held that an erroneous clarification gave her no right;
- A clarification from an officer will not help you retain the position if it is in contradiction with the relevant government resolutions, advertisement or eligibility criteria;
- The courts may allow a transition or transfer, retaining the position to which a candidate is appointed but that is not a binding rule. The High Court suggested accommodation as a Sevika in Jalgaon for the Appellant and the Supreme Court allowed her some time to complete her unfinished work.
What should Candidates and Appointment Authorities do ?
If you are a candidate:
- Read the advertisement and the governing G. R. together prior to applying;
- Do not rely on any authority’s acceptance of your application as deemed eligible’
- Keep proof of your experience certificates, place or posting and dates;
- If you were qualified and an ineligible person was appointed, file a representation in writing and keep proof of your qualification and rank and approach the court if the representation fails;
- If you are the appointee, check your eligibility against the advertisement and keep records that you had disclosed necessary information prior to your appointment. This may not be useful to overcome your ineligibility but may support a request for an alternative accommodation.
If you are the appointment authority:
- Scrutinise credentials of an applicant prior to selection. The Court said meticulous scrutiny would have kept the appellant out of the zone of consideration;
- Draft the advertisement precisely laying down the eligibility criteria explicitly. If you want to keep open a possibility of relaxation in the eligibility criteria, mention it explicitly in the advertisement;
- Do not rely on clarifications that contradict the G. R. if a G. R. is unclear, refer the doubt to an appropriate authority before acting on it;
- Re – check the waiting list when an appointee is cancelled. In the case the first appointment was cancelled for ineligibility and the vacancy then when to the next candidate without proper scrutiny, that can be challenged;
- Keep a reasoned record of eligibility checks for both the selected candidates and waiting – list candidates; and
- Give notice and a transition period where an appointment must be cancelled.
Case discussed: Sunita Lahu Panchpande v. The District Collector & Ors., 2026 INSC 1002, Civil Appeal No. 6379 of 2023 (Supreme Court of India, decided 16 September 2026)
Post curated with assistance from Sombuddha Paul, student, BML Munjal University School of Law.
FAQ’s
Can an appointment be set aside if the candidate did not meet the advertised eligibility?
Yes. In this case the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order setting aside such an appointment and treated it as a fraud on public, since it disregarded the advertised qualification.
Does it matter if the appointing authority made the mistake and the candidate hid nothing?
Not in this case. The High Court accepted that the appellant had withheld nothing and that the authority was at fault, but still held she was ineligible, and the Supreme Court agreed.
Can the authority relax an eligibility condition after the advertisement?
The Court said the only window to save such an appointment is an indication in the advertisement that the authority reserved the right to relax an essential requirement. None was shown here.
Can a Divisional Commissioner clarify a Government Resolution?
Not in a way that is contrary to it. The Court held that if clarification was required, the Commissioner should have referred the matter to the Government in the appropriate department.
What happens to the next wait-listed candidate?
Here, the second wait-listed candidate who had challenged the appointment is entitled to the benefits of the High Court’s judgment, within two months of the Supreme Court’s order.