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

The petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak in the respondent school from 27 July 2011, under the 3% quota for persons with disabilities, and later became an Assistant Teacher.

The Education Inspector approved both appointments.

In 2018, the Deputy Director of Education issued a show-cause notice and, by order dated 13 November 2018, cancelled the approval on the ground that the management had not published an advertisement and had not complied with Rule 9(8) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation, contending, among other things, that the authorities could not review the earlier approval absent fraud, misrepresentation or suppression.

The State defended the order on the ground that the appointment contravened Rule 9(8) and was an illegal back-door appointment.

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

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the cancellation order set aside and his salary arrears released, given the length of his service and the circumstances of his appointment.

Under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, Rule 9(8) governs the appointment procedure relied upon by the State in challenging the petitioner’s appointment.

The Court applied the principle that an authority cannot review its own order unless review power is expressly or impliedly conferred; an earlier approval cannot be recalled merely because it may have been erroneous, absent a case of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression.

Relying on Mrs. Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra and Ansari Amina Muzhar Ali v. State of Maharashtra, the Court further applied the principle that a notice and order seeking to revisit an approval must address such grounds, and that reopening long-standing approvals without them may be inequitable.

The Government Resolution dated 23 August 2017 provided for notice and an opportunity of hearing before cancellation of approval; the Court read the governing principles as requiring the alleged fraud, misrepresentation or suppression to be put to the affected party.

The State also invoked Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), but the Court did not accept that submission as a basis to uphold the impugned order.

The impugned order rested on the alleged failure to comply with Rule 9(8), but neither the show-cause notice nor the order alleged fraud, misrepresentation or suppression in obtaining the original approval.

Applying Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande and Ansari Amina Muzhar Ali, the Court held that the authorities could not use the asserted procedural irregularity alone to revisit the prior approval.

It also noted that the petitioner had served for nearly 15 years, that his appointment had previously been approved, and that he had been appointed under the disability quota; the State had not provided a sufficient basis to establish the appointment’s illegality.

It allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the Deputy Director’s order dated 13 November 2018.

The Court directed Respondent Nos. 1–4 to release the petitioner’s salary and any arrears due, and made the Rule absolute.