Supreme Court: appointing ineligible candidates amounts to fraud on public

The case concerns an appeal by Sunita Lahu Panchpande against a High Court judgment that set aside her appointment as an Anganwadi Supervisor in Nashik District due to ineligibility and ordered the appointment of the next eligible candidate, Gitanjali Sudhakar Shirsat.

Who it concerns: Appellant: Sunita Lahu Panchpande; Respondents: The District Collector & Ors. (including Gitanjali Sudhakar Shirsat as the sixth respondent); Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu.

What the court decided

• Dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's judgment setting aside the appellant's appointment.
• Held that the appointment was a fraud on the public because the appellant did not meet the mandatory requirement of 10 years' experience in Nashik District as per the advertisement and 2001 Government Resolution.
• Directed that the sixth respondent (Gitanjali Sudhakar Shirsat) be entitled to benefits flowing from the High Court judgment, to be made available within two months.
• Granted the appellant time until 30th September 2026 to complete unfinished work before ceasing to continue on the post.
• Disposed of any connected pending applications.

Also in the document

• The Court held that the Divisional Commissioner's clarification allowing the appointment was erroneous and contrary to the 2001 Government Resolution.
• The Court cited the precedent 'Distt. Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi' to support the view that appointing ineligible candidates amounts to fraud on the public.
• The judgment is dated September 16, 2026.