Supreme Court of India· 16 September 2026

Can an administrative authority issue a clarification that runs contrary to the express terms of a Government Resolution?

SUNITA LAHU PANCHPANDE v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & ORS

2026 INSC 1002 · CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6379 OF 2023
Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta · Justice Sheel Nagu

🔖 Save this judgment 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

An administrative authority cannot issue a clarification that runs contrary to the express terms of a Government Resolution.

No. An administrative authority cannot issue a clarification that runs contrary to the express terms of a Government Resolution. Where a genuine ambiguity requires clarification, the authority ought to refer the disputed subject to the Government in the appropriate department, rather than clarifying it contrary to the Resolution's own terms, as the Divisional Commissioner did here in disregarding the 2001 G.R.'s requirement of ten years' work experience in the same district. (¶7, 8)

Headnote

Recruitment advertisement — Eligibility qualification — Fraud on public — Government Resolution — Administrative clarification — Recruitment advertisement — Eligibility qualification — Fraud on public — Held: Appointing a candidate in disregard of the advertisement's qualification amounts to a fraud on the public where no relaxation was reserved. The aggrieved are those with equal or better qualifications who did not apply for lacking the advertised qualification. (¶12, 13) Government Resolution — Administrative clarification — Held further: An administrative authority cannot issue a clarification that runs contrary to the express terms of a Government Resolution; a genuine ambiguity must be referred to the Government itself. Appeal dismissed; the appellant's appointment set aside as upheld by the High Court. (¶7, 8, 14, 15)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 7The 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.

Paragraph 8Not 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.

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of SUNITA LAHU PANCHPANDE v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Does appointing a candidate in disregard of the advertisement's qualification amount to a fraud on the public where no relaxation was reserved?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections