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 Respondent No. 6 school in June 2011.

Her appointment and subsequent appointment as an Assistant Teacher were approved by the Education Inspector in 2013 and 2014, respectively.

In November 2018, the Deputy Director of Education cancelled the approval, principally on the ground that the school 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 that order, contending that the authorities could not review the earlier approval absent fraud, misrepresentation or suppression.

1. Whether the Deputy Director of Education could cancel the previously granted approval on the basis of non-compliance with Rule 9(8), without alleging fraud, misrepresentation or suppression

2. Whether the passage of time and the Petitioner’s lengthy service warranted setting aside the cancellation order

Under the principle applied in *Mrs. Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra*, an authority cannot review its own order unless review is expressly or impliedly authorised; an earlier approval, even if erroneous, cannot be recalled absent fraud, misrepresentation or suppression.

*Ansari Amina Muzhar Ali v. State of Maharashtra* further held that reconsideration of an approval is confined to limited circumstances such as fraud, suppression, misrepresentation or collusion, and that the show-cause notice and resulting order must address the relevant ground.

The State Government Resolution dated 23 August 2017 required notice and an opportunity of hearing before cancellation of approval; as explained in *Ansari Amina Muzhar Ali*, the notice should identify the alleged fraud, misrepresentation or suppression where those grounds are relied upon.

Rule 9(8) of the MEPS Rules, 1981 was the stated basis for the cancellation, while the Petitioner relied on Section 5(2)(a) of the MEPS Act, 1978 in support of her appointment.

The Court found that the show-cause notice and the impugned order relied on alleged non-compliance with Rule 9(8), but neither alleged fraud, misrepresentation or suppression.

Applying the principles in *Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande* and *Ansari Amina Muzhar Ali*, the Court held that the earlier approval could not be cancelled on that basis alone.

It also noted that the Petitioner had worked at the school for approximately 15 years and that the State had not adequately explained why her approved appointment was illegal.

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