Prior approval of a teacher’s appointment cannot be revoked absent fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression.

The petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak at Amar Kor Vidyalaya from 7 July 2011 and, after completing three years, as an Assistant Teacher from 26 August 2014. The Education Inspector approved both appointments.

In November 2018, the Deputy Director of Education cancelled the approval on the grounds that the management had not published an advertisement and had not complied with Rule 9(8) of the MEPS Rules, 1981.

The petitioner challenged that order, contending that the authorities could not review the earlier approval absent fraud or similar grounds and that she had served for many years.

The State supported the cancellation, alleging an irregular appointment and relying on *Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)*.

Whether the Deputy Director could cancel the petitioner’s previously approved appointment on the basis of non-compliance with Rule 9(8), without alleging fraud, misrepresentation or suppression.

Whether the cancellation should stand despite the petitioner’s long service and the absence of a demonstrated basis for treating her appointment as illegal.

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

It also considered the State Government Resolution dated 23 August 2017, which contemplated notice and an opportunity of hearing before cancellation of an approval, and the decision in *Shishir Liladhar Lele v. Satish Pradhan Dnyanasadhana College*.

Rule 9(8) of the MEPS Rules, 1981 was the stated basis for the cancellation; Section 5(2)(a) of the MEPS Act, 1977 was relied upon by the petitioner in support of her appointment as an Assistant Teacher.

The Court noted the State’s reliance on *Umadevi (3)* but found no reasonable justification on the record for treating this appointment as illegal.

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

Applying the cited authorities, the Court held that procedural notice and a hearing alone did not justify reconsidering the prior approval in the absence of those grounds.

It also considered that the petitioner had worked at the school since 2011, her appointment had been approved, and the State had not adequately explained why it was illegal; after nearly 15 years, the Court found no reason to disturb the appointment.

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

The petition was disposed of accordingly.