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

The Petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak at Respondent No. 6 school on 16 June 2011 against an OBC-reserved vacancy and received approval for that appointment in 2013.

After completing three years, he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher from 1 July 2014; that appointment was approved in September 2014.

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 school had not published an advertisement and had not complied with Rule 9(8) of the MEPS Rules, 1981.

The Petitioner challenged that order, contending, among other things, that the authorities lacked power to review the earlier approval and that no fraud, misrepresentation or suppression had been alleged.

The State defended the cancellation as justified by non-compliance with Rule 9(8) and relied on Umadevi.

Whether the Respondent No. 3 could cancel the previously granted approval on the basis of non-compliance with Rule 9(8), without alleging fraud, misrepresentation or suppression.

Whether the Petitioner’s appointment and approval should be disturbed after the passage of approximately 14 years, in the circumstances of the case.

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

Ansari Amina Muzhar Ali v. State of Maharashtra applied that limitation to cancellation proceedings and held that the relevant grounds must be put to the affected party in the show-cause notice and addressed in the decision; the Government Resolution dated 23 August 2017 contemplates notice, an opportunity to be heard and a reasoned decision.

Rule 9(8) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 governed the recruitment procedure invoked by the State as the basis for cancellation.

Section 5(2)(a) of the MEPS Act, 1978 was cited by the Petitioner in support of his appointment as an Assistant Teacher after completing three years as a Shikshan Sevak.

The State’s reliance on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) was not accepted as sufficient to establish that this appointment was illegal on the record before the Court.

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

Applying the principles in Shivanee Deshpande and Ansari Amina Muzhar Ali, the Court held that procedural non-compliance alone did not justify reviewing and cancelling the prior approval in the circumstances, particularly where the required grounds for reconsideration had not been raised.

The State’s reliance on Umadevi did not alter the result because it had not reasonably explained how the Petitioner’s appointment was illegal, and the appointment had been approved by the education authority.

The Court also considered the substantial period of service—approximately 14 years—and found no reason to disturb the appointment at that stage.

It directed Respondents Nos. 1–4 to release the Petitioner’s salary and any arrears due, made the Rule absolute, and disposed of the petition.