The Supreme Court has upheld the cancellation of an Anganwadi Supervisor’s appointment after finding that she did not meet the required eligibility condition of having 10 years of experience as an Anganwadi Sevika in the same district.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu dismissed the appeal filed by Sunita Lahu Panchpande against the Bombay High Court judgment that had set aside her appointment and directed the authorities to appoint the eligible next candidate from the waiting list.
Background
Sunita Lahu Panchpande had been working as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district since February 1992. In April 2013, the Nashik Zilla Parishad issued an advertisement for Anganwadi Supervisors.
The advertisement required applicants to have at least 10 years of experience as an Anganwadi Sevika and specifically stated that only Anganwadi Sevikes working in Tribal/Rural projects under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme in Nashik district could apply.
Despite having gained her experience in Jalgaon, Panchpande applied for the Nashik post. She was placed first on the waiting list and was later appointed in March 2014 after the appointment of another candidate was cancelled.
A candidate who stood second on the waiting list challenged Panchpande’s appointment. The Bombay High Court held that Panchpande was ineligible because her experience had been obtained outside Nashik district and directed that the next eligible candidate be appointed.
Before the Supreme Court, Panchpande relied on a clarification issued by the Divisional Commissioner in November 2013. The clarification had stated that the 2001 Government Resolution did not clearly require 10 years of experience within the same district.
The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with that interpretation. It found that a combined reading of the relevant clauses of the 2001 Government Resolution clearly required the 10 years of experience to have been acquired in the same district.
The Court further held that the Divisional Commissioner could not issue a clarification contrary to the Government Resolution. If clarification was required, the matter should have been referred to the appropriate department of the Government.
The Bench also noted that the advertisement itself required candidates to produce a certificate showing 10 years of experience as an Anganwadi Sevika in Nashik district. Therefore, Panchpande did not satisfy the eligibility requirement at the stage of applying for the post.
The Court also observed that the Zilla Parishad had failed to properly scrutinise her credentials before allowing her candidature to proceed.
Referring to its earlier decision in Distt. Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, the Court emphasised the importance of appointments being made according to the qualifications expressly mentioned in a recruitment advertisement.
"The 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 Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the Bombay High Court's judgment and upheld the directions issued by it.
The Court dismissed Panchpande's appeal and directed that the sixth respondent receive the benefits flowing from the High Court judgment within two months, if those benefits had not already been extended.
Panchpande was given time until September 30, 2026, to complete any unfinished work. After that date, she could not continue on the post she had been holding.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sunita Lahu Panchpande v. The District Collector & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 6379 of 2023
Judges: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
Decision Date: September 16, 2026
