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

The petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak in the sixth respondent school from 1 February 2012 to fill a vacancy created by a teacher’s voluntary retirement.

His appointment was approved by the Education Inspector in 2013; after completing three years, he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher, and that appointment was approved in 2015.

In 2017, the approval was cancelled, but the cancellation was withdrawn following proceedings before the High Court, which directed that the petitioner’s service continue with consequential benefits.

In 2018, the Deputy Director of Education again issued a show-cause notice and cancelled the approval, citing the absence of an advertisement and non-compliance with Rule 9(8) of the MEPS Rules, 1981.

The petitioner challenged that order, contending that it was an impermissible review of the earlier approval and that no fraud, misrepresentation or suppression was alleged.

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

2. Whether the cancellation should be set aside in light of the petitioner’s lengthy service and the absence of a sufficient basis for disturbing his appointment.

Under the MEPS Act, 1978 and the MEPS Rules, 1981, including Rule 9(8), appointments in private schools are subject to prescribed selection requirements.

However, an authority cannot review or recall its own approval unless the power to do so is conferred expressly or by necessary implication; an earlier approval cannot be reversed merely because it may have been erroneous, absent fraud, misrepresentation or suppression.

The Court applied the principles in Mrs. Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra, Ansari Amina Muzhar Ali v. State of Maharashtra and Shishir Liladhar Lele v. Satish Pradhan Dnyanasadhana College, including the requirement that a proposed cancellation identify the relevant fraud, misrepresentation or suppression and afford an opportunity to respond.

The State relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), but the Court found no adequate justification for applying it to invalidate this appointment.

The impugned order rested on the alleged failure to comply with Rule 9(8), particularly the absence of an advertisement, but neither the show-cause notice nor the order alleged fraud, misrepresentation or suppression.

Applying the cited authorities, the Court held that this procedural ground alone did not justify revisiting the earlier approval.

It also noted that the petitioner’s appointment had been approved and that he had served for approximately 14 years; the State had not shown a sufficient basis to disturb it or explained how Umadevi rendered the appointment illegal.

It directed respondents 5 and 6 to submit a proposal to respondents 3 and 4 within four weeks of producing the order, and directed respondents 1 to 4 to release the petitioner’s salary and any arrears.

Rule was made absolute in those terms.