Education authorities cannot review appointment approvals absent fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression.

The Petitioner, a qualified B.A., D.Ed. teacher, was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak at Respondent No. 6-school in August 2011 against a sanctioned vacancy. Her appointment was approved in 2013; after completing three years, she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in August 2014, and that appointment was approved in September 2014

Following earlier proceedings in which cancellation orders concerning approvals were withdrawn, the Deputy Director of Education issued a show-cause notice in July 2018 and, by order dated 13 November 2018, cancelled the Petitioner’s approval, citing the absence of an advertisement and non-compliance with Rule 9(8) of the MEPS Rules, 1981

The Petitioner challenged that order and sought release of her salary and arrears

1. Whether the education authorities could cancel the previously granted approval of the Petitioner’s appointment in the absence of an allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression

2. Whether the show-cause notice and cancellation order, based on alleged non-compliance with Rule 9(8) of the MEPS Rules, 1981, could stand without alleging and determining fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression

3. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to restoration of approval and release of her salary and arrears

Under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977, including Section 5(2)(a), and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, including Rule 9(8), appointments and their approval are governed by the statutory requirements.

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

It also relied on *Ansari Amina Muzhar Ali v. State of Maharashtra*, which held that a cancellation proceeding must specifically raise and address such grounds, and on the Government Resolution dated 23 August 2017, which requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before cancellation

The State’s reliance on *Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)* did not, without justification showing how this appointment was illegal, establish a basis to disturb the Petitioner’s appointment

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

Applying the review principles in *Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande* and *Ansari Amina Muzhar Ali*, the Court held that the prior approval could not be cancelled on that basis alone, particularly after the Petitioner had served for many years and her appointment had previously been approved

The State’s reliance on *Umadevi* was insufficient because it did not explain how the Petitioner’s appointment was illegal

It directed Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to release the Petitioner’s salary and any arrears, and made the Rule absolute

The petition was disposed of accordingly