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

The petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak in a sanctioned vacancy at the sixth respondent school on 14 November 2011. Her appointment was approved in 2013; after completing three years, she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 2015, and that appointment was also approved.

In 2018, the Deputy Director issued a show-cause notice concerning alleged appointment irregularities. By order dated 13 November 2018, the authority cancelled the approval on the ground that no newspaper advertisement had been published and Rule 9(8) of the MEPS Rules had not been followed. The petitioner challenged that order after her salary stopped being paid.

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

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the cancellation order set aside and her salary and arrears released, given her long service and the circumstances of the approval.

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

An authority cannot review or recall its earlier order unless the power is conferred expressly or by necessary implication; an earlier approval cannot be set aside merely because it may have been erroneous, absent a case of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression.

Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra and Ansari Amina Muzhar Ali v. State of Maharashtra applied this principle and treated review after long service as inequitable unless those grounds are established; the latter also held that the show-cause notice must identify the relevant grounds.

The State’s Government Resolution dated 23 August 2017 required notice and an opportunity to be heard before cancellation, while the court’s cited precedents required the proposed reconsideration to be grounded in fraud, misrepresentation or suppression.

The impugned order relied on non-compliance with Rule 9(8), but neither the show-cause notice nor the order alleged fraud, misrepresentation or suppression. The court therefore found that the cancellation was an impermissible reconsideration of the earlier approval, rather than a review justified by the limited grounds recognised in the cited authorities.

The petitioner had served for nearly 14 years, and the State did not provide a sufficient basis to establish that her appointment was illegal; the court also noted that the appointment had been approved. In those circumstances, the court declined to disturb her appointment.

It directed Respondents 1–4 to release the petitioner’s salary and any arrears, made the Rule absolute on those terms, and disposed of the petition.