Supreme Court Upholds High Court Order Setting Aside Anganwadi Supervisor Appointment for Ineligibility. Appointment Contrary to Advertisement and Government Resolution Amounts to Fraud on Public Under 2001 G.R.; No Relaxation Was Shown.

Civil appeal challenging a High Court order that set aside the appellant's appointment as Anganwadi Supervisor in Nashik District and directed appointment of the sixth respondent.

The appellant sought to set aside the High Court judgment dated 7th August 2017 and restore her appointment as Anganwadi Supervisor; the sixth respondent sought to uphold the High Court's direction for her appointment and benefits.

The appellant was aggrieved by the High Court's finding that she was ineligible due to lack of 10 years' work experience in Nashik District and the consequential cancellation of her appointment.

The High Court allowed Writ Petition No. 5740 of 2014, set aside the appellant's appointment, directed the State of Maharashtra to appoint the writ petitioner as Anganwadi Supervisor in place of the appellant, and observed that the appellant may be accommodated as Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district.

Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the appellant's appointment on the ground of ineligibility despite the Divisional Commissioner's clarification that same-district experience was not required. Whether the Divisional Commissioner's clarification dated 19th November 2013 could override the Government Resolution dated 17th November 2001 and the advertisement conditions. Whether appointment made contrary to the advertisement and Government Resolution amounts to fraud on public and whether any relaxation was available. Whether the appellant's three years of unblemished service as Anganwadi Supervisor created any right to continue despite ineligibility.

The appellant contended that after the merit list and waiting list were prepared, the Zilla Parishad sought clarification from the Divisional Commissioner, who clarified that the 2001 G.R. did not require same-district experience; therefore, the appointment was legal after cancellation of the earlier appointee. The appellant argued that no illegality, far less patent illegality, existed and the High Court erred in allowing the writ petition more than three years after the appellant had been rendering unblemished service as Anganwadi Supervisor. The sixth respondent contended that she was fully qualified under the advertisement and was second on the waiting list; the appellant was ineligible because she acquired experience in Jalgaon district and not Nashik district. The sixth respondent submitted a representation on 9th April 2014 against the appellant's appointment, which was not considered, and successfully challenged the appointment in the writ petition.

An appointment made in disregard of qualifications stipulated in an advertisement and governing Government Resolution is illegal and void ab initio. When an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and appointment is made in disregard of it, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee; the aggrieved include all similarly or better qualified aspirants who did not apply, and it amounts to fraud on public. Courts should not perpetuate fraudulent practice unless the advertisement clearly states that qualifications are relaxable. A subordinate authority cannot issue a clarification contrary to the Government Resolution; if any clarification is needed, it must be referred to the Government. An ineligible appointee does not acquire any right to continue on the post merely by rendering service without blemish, and the High Court is justified in interfering even after delay when the appointment is contrary to mandatory eligibility criteria.

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. 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 Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, indeed, was in error in construing 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. 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.

The Zilla Parishad, Nashik published an advertisement dated 18th April 2013 for Anganwadi Supervisor posts, prescribing 10 years' work experience as Anganwadi Sevika and restricting applications to those currently working in Tribal/Rural projects in Nashik District. The appellant, with experience only in Jalgaon district, applied and was placed at No.1 on the waiting list. The first appointee, Lata Sanjay Kadam, was appointed on 29th July 2013 but her appointment was later cancelled due to ineligibility. The Zilla Parishad sought clarification from the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik on 24th October 2013; the Divisional Commissioner issued a clarification on 19th November 2013 stating that the 2001 G.R. did not require same-district experience. The appellant was appointed on 4th March 2014. The sixth respondent represented on 9th April 2014, which was not considered. She filed Writ Petition No. 5740 of 2014 before the High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition on 7th August 2017, set aside the appellant's appointment, directed appointment of the sixth respondent, and observed that the appellant may be accommodated as Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon. The appellant then filed Civil Appeal No. 6379 of 2023 by special leave before the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal on 16th September 2026.

• Government Resolution No. ABVSY-2001/PK-146/K6 dated 17th November 2001: Clauses 3, 5, 16-A