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

Paragraph 12We are, at this stage, reminded of this Court’s decision in Distt. Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi[^9], where the Bench speaking through Hon’ble P.B. Sawant, J. had the occasion to observe as follows: 6. It must further be realised by all concerned that 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. We are afraid that the Tribunal lost sight of this fact.

Paragraph 13Juxtaposed with the present case, the law laid down in the above text has full application here. 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 only window through which the appellant’s appointment could be saved is, if there was an indication in the advertisement of the appointing authority reserving its right to relax any essential requirement. No such relaxation is shown to us to be available in the present case; consequently, following the ratio of the decision in M. Tripura Sundari Devi (supra), it has to be held that the High Court was justified in interfering with the appointment of the appellant.