Experience From the Wrong District: Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of Anganwadi Supervisor's Appointment

Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has upheld a Bombay High Court judgment that set aside the appointment of an Anganwadi Supervisor in Nashik district because her ten years' experience as an Anganwadi Sevika was from Jalgaon, not Nashik. It held that the 2001 Government Resolution and the advertisement both required same-district experience, and that a Divisional Commissioner's contrary clarification could not override them.

The appellant had worked as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district since February 1992. In April 2013 the Zilla Parishad, Nashik advertised posts of Anganwadi Supervisor requiring 10 years' experience as a Sevika; its instructions confined applicants to Sevikas working in ICDS projects in Nashik district. When an appointee was later found ineligible, the Zilla Parishad sought clarification, and on 19 November 2013 the Divisional Commissioner said the 2001 Government Resolution did not clearly require same-district experience.

Relying on that clarification, the Zilla Parishad appointed the appellant, first on the waiting list, on 4 March 2014. The candidate second on the waiting list objected, and her writ petition succeeded before the Bombay High Court on 7 August 2017. The High Court set aside the appellant's appointment, directed the appointment of the writ petitioner, and observed that the appellant could be accommodated as a Sevika in Jalgaon.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can an appointment made on an official's clarification survive when the Government Resolution and the advertisement require experience in the same district?

The Government Resolution, the Advertisement and the Clarification

Reading clauses 3, 5 and 16-A of the 2001 Government Resolution together, the Court held that 10 years' experience as an Anganwadi Sevika in the same district was required, and that the Divisional Commissioner had misread it. He could not issue a clarification contrary to the Resolution; the proper course was to refer the question to the Government. The advertisement's instructions, which also formed part of the call letter, likewise required same-district experience.

Relying on Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, the Court reiterated that appointing a person who does not meet the advertised qualification, where the advertisement reserves no power of relaxation, is a fraud on the public. The appellant's appointment, made on an erroneous clarification and contrary to the advertisement, gave her no right to continue, though the Court described the High Court's suggestion of accommodating her in Jalgaon as prudent and compassionate.

What the Court Actually Held

• The 2001 Government Resolution requires 10 years' Sevika experience in the same district for appointment as Supervisor.
• A Divisional Commissioner cannot issue a clarification contrary to a Government Resolution.
• The appellant was ineligible under the advertisement and her appointment conferred no right to continue.
• The appeal was dismissed; the sixth respondent is to get the benefit of the High Court judgment within two months, and the appellant may complete unfinished work until 30 September 2026.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It confirms that advertised eligibility conditions bind both candidates and the recruiting body.
• It limits the effect of administrative clarifications that depart from the governing policy.
• It shows that years of service under an invalid appointment do not create a right to continue.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Candidates

• Check every instruction in the advertisement and call letter, not just the headline qualification.
• An appointment obtained on a misreading of the rules can be undone even years later.

For Recruiting Authorities

• Scrutinise applications against the advertisement before appointment.
• Refer genuine doubts about a Government Resolution to the Government rather than relying on a local clarification.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

The High Court noted the fault lay with the appointing authority, but the Supreme Court held that the appointment still gave her no right to continue.

She is entitled to the benefits of the High Court judgment, to be extended within two months.

The Court described the High Court's observation that she could be accommodated as a Sevika in Jalgaon as prudent and compassionate.

Conclusion