Education authorities cannot cancel approved appointments absent fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression.

The petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak at the sixth respondent school from 9 January 2012 and, after completing three years, as an Assistant Teacher from 24 February 2015.

The Education Inspector approved both appointments.

Following a 2018 show-cause notice, the Deputy Director of Education cancelled approval on 13 November 2018, principally because no advertisement had been issued and Rule 9(8) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 had allegedly not been followed.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation, contending that the authorities could not review the earlier approval absent fraud, misrepresentation or suppression; her salary had also remained unpaid since February 2019.

1. Whether the education authority could cancel the petitioner’s previously granted appointment approval on the ground of non-compliance with Rule 9(8), without alleging fraud, misrepresentation, suppression or collusion.

2. Whether the cancellation order should be set aside and the petitioner’s salary arrears released.

Under the principle stated in Mrs. Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra, an authority cannot review its own order unless review is authorised expressly or by necessary implication; an earlier approval, even if erroneous, cannot ordinarily be recalled absent fraud, misrepresentation or suppression.

Ansari Amina Muzhar Ali v. State of Maharashtra explains that these grounds may include conduct by authorities or collusion, but must be identified in the show-cause notice and addressed in the decision; a review after a long period of service may also be inequitable.

The State Government Resolution dated 23 August 2017 required notice and an opportunity of hearing before cancellation of approval.

Rule 9(8) of the MEPS Rules was the asserted basis for cancellation; the State also invoked Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), but the Court found no justification for treating this appointment as illegal.

The Court found that neither the show-cause notice nor the impugned order alleged fraud, misrepresentation, suppression or collusion; the cancellation rested on the alleged failure to comply with Rule 9(8).

Applying the principles in Shivanee Deshpande and Ansari Amina Muzhar Ali, the Court held that the asserted procedural irregularity alone did not justify reviewing the earlier approval.

It also noted that the petitioner had served for nearly 14 years, that her appointment had been approved, and that the State had not demonstrated why it was illegal.

It directed respondents 1 to 4 to release the petitioner’s salary and any arrears due; the Rule was made absolute in those terms.