SUNITA LAHU PANCHPANDE v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & ORS.

2026 INSC 1002 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6379 OF 2023

SUNITA LAHU PANCHPANDE … APPELLANT

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. This appeal, by special leave, is at the instance of Sunita Lahu

Panchpande1. She takes exception to a judgment and order dated 7th

August, 20172 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at

Bombay3. The High Court allowed a writ petition4 presented by Gitanjali

Sudhakar Shirsat5 and while granting relief to her, set aside the

appointment of the appellant as an Anganwadi Supervisor in Nashik

District, directed the State of Maharashtra to appoint the writ petitioner,

the sixth respondent in this appeal, as an Anganwadi Supervisor in place of

the appellant and observed that the appellant may be accommodated as

an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district.

Signature Not Verified

2. Facts giving rise to the writ petition of the sixth respondent are not

too complicated. Appellant had been working as an Anganwadi Sevika in

Jalgaon district since February 1992. An advertisement was published by

Zilla Parishad, Nashik dated 18th April 20136, calling for applications for

various posts, including that of an Anganwadi Supervisor. The

advertisement stipulated the qualifications the aspirants were required to

possess. Inter alia, it was required that an applicant must have work

experience of 10 (ten) years or more as an Anganwadi Sevika. One of the

8 (eight) important instructions forming part of the advertisement was to

the effect that “(O)nly Anganwadi Sevikes currently working in Tribal/Rural

projects under Integrated Child Development Services Scheme in Nashik

District can apply for the said post”. Appellant, though having never worked

in any project in Nashik district but having work experience of more than

10 (ten) years in Jalgaon district applied for the said post, was selected and

placed at No. 1 on the waiting list for appointment on one of the 3 (three)

vacancies reserved for the OBC category, out of 13 vacancies in all. One,

Lata Sanjay Kadam, was appointed on 29th July, 2013; however, sometime

later, she was found not qualified/eligible for the post leading to

cancellation of her appointment. Appellant ultimately came to be appointed

on the vacancy created by cancellation of appointment of the said Lata

Sanjay Kadam, on 4th March, 2014.

6 advertisement

3. The sixth respondent, who otherwise was fully qualified in terms of

the advertisement, figured at the second position of the waiting list. Finding

that the appellant had been appointed, though she was not eligible, the

sixth respondent submitted a representation to the official respondents on

9th April, 2014 challenging the appointment of the appellant. Such

representation was not considered. Aggrieved by the appointment of the

appellant and consequent exclusion of her candidature, the sixth

respondent successfully challenged the validity of the appointment of the

appellant in the writ petition. The High Court recorded its satisfaction that

having regard to the terms of the advertisement and a Government

Resolution dated 17th November, 20017, the appellant was ineligible due to

her acquiring experience in a district other than Nashik district.

Notwithstanding that the appellant had not withheld any information, the

fault being clearly of the appointing authority, and that she had continued

as Anganwadi Supervisor without any blemish for 3 (three) years, it was

held that the appellant was ineligible and, therefore, had to make way for

the next wait-listed candidate, i.e., the writ petitioner. The High Court’s

directions/observation, noted at the commencement of this judgment, have

left the appellant seriously discontented.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that after the

merit list and the waiting list had been prepared, the Zilla Parishad, Nashik

had sought a clarification on 24th October, 2013 from the Divisional

7 Govt. Resolution No. ABVSY-2001/PK-146/K6

Commissioner, Nashik as to true construction of the said Government

Resolution dated 17th November 20018, more particularly whether it did

stipulate, as a mandatory requirement, 10 (ten) years of work experience

as an Anganwadi Sevika in the same district. This led the Divisional

Commissioner, Nashik to issue a clarification vide letter dated 19th

November 2013 that such a condition of eligibility could not be read in the

2001 G.R.; hence, appointments could be offered to those in the merit list,

followed by the waiting list, in terms of the qualifications stipulated in the

advertisement. It was after receiving such clarification that the Zilla

Parishad offered appointment to the appellant considering her position at

No.1 on the waiting list, after the appointment of Lata Sanjay Kadam was

cancelled. Based on the above, the contention advanced is that the

appointment of the appellant does not suffer from any illegality, far less

patent illegality, for which the High Court would have been justified in

allowing the writ petition of the sixth respondent more than 3 (three) years

after the appellant had been rendering service as an Anganwadi Supervisor

without any blemish.

5. The 2001 G.R. ordained that in order to be appointed as an

Anganwadi Supervisor, an aspirant for such post must have worked as an

Anganwadi Sevika in the same district for 10 (ten) years; however, if no

vacant post in the project in which the Anganwadi Sevika is working is

available, she shall be given appointment on a vacant post in nearby

projects. It is pertinent to note that the 2001 G.R. restricted candidates

figuring in the selection list of one district from being considered eligible for

appointment on the same post in another district.

6. A clarification, in vernacular, was issued by the Divisional

Commissioner in the light of the 2001 G.R. We have perused the translated

version of the letter dated 19th November, 2013, more particularly

paragraph 4 which is relevant. The same is reproduced hereunder:

4. Out of the 302 candidates present in the written examination 55 candidates passed examination hence the District Selection Committee under chairmanship of District Collector had conducted their interviews in which it was noticed that 6 candidates had experience of working in the post of Anganwadi worker outside Nashik District. Out of them the District Selection Committee has selected a candidate (Smt. Pachpande - OBC) at No.1 on the Waiting List . There is no clear mention in the Government Resolution No ABVSY-2001/ PK- 146/K-6 dated 17th November 2001 that the applicant should be an Anganwadi worker bearing 10 years of experience under Integrated Child Development Plan working within the same district.

7. The above clarification given by the Divisional Commissioner utterly

fails to consider the contents of the 2001 G.R. in the proper perspective. A

conjoint reading of clauses 3, 5 and 16-A of the 2001 G.R. reveals the

express requirement of 10 (ten) years’ work experience as an Anganwadi

Sevika which had to be acquired in the same district. The Divisional

Commissioner, Nashik, indeed, was in error in construing the 2001 G.R.

8. Not only that, we have no hesitation to hold that the Divisional

Commissioner could not have issued any such clarification that runs wholly

contrary to the contents of the 2001 G.R. If any clarification of the nature

issued by him, at all, was required, the said commissioner ought to have

referred the disputed subject to the Government, in the appropriate

department, for a clarification to be issued by it.

9. The Divisional Commissioner also failed to consider the instructions

for the aspirants, which were part and parcel of the advertisement as well

as the call letter dated 10th July 2013 issued to the appellant. It also

required a certificate demonstrating 10 (ten) years’ work experience as an

Anganwadi Sevika in Nashik district. Significantly, the first of such 8 (eight)

instructions quoted in paragraph 2 above, which is in line with the 2001

G.R., seals the fate of the appellant since she was not even qualified to

apply for consideration of her candidature in the first place.

10. Even otherwise, the Zilla Parishad was equally remiss. It did not

scrutinise the credentials of the appellant meticulously. Had there been a

meticulous scrutiny, the appellant could not have crossed the threshold and

enter the zone of consideration.

11. In fine, appointment of the appellant by the Zilla Parishad based on

the erroneous clarification given by the Divisional Commissioner and

contrary to the advertisement did not vest her with any right to continue

on the post of Anganwadi Sevika in Nashik district.

12. We are, at this stage, reminded of this Court’s decision in Distt.

Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential

School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi9, where the Bench speaking

through Hon’ble P.B. Sawant, J. had the occasion to observe as follows:

9 (1990) 3 SCC 655

6. 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. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. We are afraid that the Tribunal lost sight of this fact.

13. Juxtaposed with the present case, the law laid down in the above text

has full application here. 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. The only

window through which the appellant’s appointment could be saved is, if

there was an indication in the advertisement of the appointing authority

reserving its right to relax any essential requirement. No such relaxation is

shown to us to be available in the present case; consequently, following

the ratio of the decision in M. Tripura Sundari Devi (supra), it has to be

held that the High Court was justified in interfering with the appointment

of the appellant.

14. We, therefore, entertain no doubt that the impugned judgment of the

Division Bench does not suffer from any infirmity or vulnerability so as to

warrant interference in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction. In fact, the

prudent and compassionate view of the Division Bench is reflected from the

impugned judgment when it observed that the appellant may be

accommodated in Jalgaon district.

15. The appeal is without merit. Accordingly, while upholding the

impugned judgment, we dismiss the appeal. The sixth respondent shall be

entitled to benefits flowing from the impugned judgment. If not already

extended, the benefits thereunder be made available to her as early as

possible but positively within 2 (two) months from date.

16. Appellant is given time till 30th September, 2026 to complete

unfinished work, if any. Thereafter, she may not be continued on the post

on which she has hitherto been discharging service.

17. Connected applications, if pending, shall stand disposed of.

………………………………J. (DIPANKAR DATTA)

..……….……………………J. (SHEEL NAGU) NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 16, 2026.