Education authorities cannot revoke appointment approval absent fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression.

The Petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak at Respondent No. 6 school from 1 August 2011 and her appointment was approved by the Education Inspector in 2013.

After completing three years, she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher from 16 August 2014; that appointment was also approved in 2015.

In 2018, the Deputy Director of Education issued a show-cause notice concerning alleged appointment irregularities.

By order dated 13 November 2018, the authority cancelled the approval, citing, among other grounds, non-compliance with Rule 9(8) of the MEPS Rules, 1981 and the absence of an advertisement.

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

Whether the authority could cancel the previously granted approval to the Petitioner’s appointment, where the show-cause notice and impugned order alleged procedural non-compliance but did not allege fraud, misrepresentation, suppression, or collusion.

Whether the impugned order should be set aside, and the Petitioner’s salaries and arrears released, having regard to her long service and the prior approval of her appointment.

Under the MEPS Act, 1977 and the MEPS Rules, 1981, appointments in private schools are subject to the applicable statutory requirements, including Rule 9(8).

An authority cannot review or recall its own approval unless such power is conferred expressly or by necessary implication; an earlier approval, even if erroneous, cannot ordinarily be reversed absent fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression.

Ansari Amina Muzhar Ali v. State of Maharashtra further explains that review may be permissible where fraud, misrepresentation, suppression, or collusion is alleged and established, and that the show-cause notice must put the affected party on notice of those grounds.

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

The State also relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), but the Court found no sufficient justification for treating this appointment as illegal.

The Court found that the Petitioner’s appointment had previously been approved and that she had served at the school since 2011.

The show-cause notice and cancellation order relied on alleged non-compliance with Rule 9(8), but did not allege fraud, misrepresentation, suppression, or collusion—the grounds identified in the cited authorities as potentially permitting reconsideration of an earlier approval.

The State did not establish why the appointment was illegal, and the Court considered it inequitable to disturb the Petitioner’s appointment after nearly fifteen years of service.

It allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the order dated 13 November 2018, and directed Respondent Nos. 1–4 to release the Petitioner’s salaries and any arrears.