Service approvals cannot be revoked for administrative irregularities absent specific findings of fraud or misrepresentation.

The Petitioners are individual teachers and their respective school managements who challenged orders dated January 23, 2026, which cancelled their individual employment approvals and Shalarth-IDs

The teachers were appointed between 2012 and 2013 on an unaided basis, subsequently transferred to aided posts, and granted permanent approvals and Shalarth-IDs by 2019-2020

In early 2025, the Respondents issued show-cause notices alleging irregularities such as lack of prior permission for recruitment, roster discrepancies, and lack of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualifications

A mass hearing for approximately 150 employees was conducted on August 5, 2025, where parties submitted responses via a prescribed questionnaire

The impugned orders cancelling approvals were served in March 2026

The Court relied on the principle that a show-cause notice must be specific and not vague to ensure a proper opportunity to meet allegations, as established in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. (2007) 5 SCC 388

Regarding TET qualifications, it applied the timeline and exemptions set by the Supreme Court in Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912

the Court applied the doctrine that an administrative authority cannot review its predecessor's approval orders unless the original order was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression, citing Mrs. Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra (WP 10133/2016) and Pramod Prabhakar Pokhale v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 3 Bom CR 278

The Court found the show-cause notices fundamentally flawed as they lacked specific charges or whispers of fraud

It criticized the "undue-haste" of the nominated authority in conducting a mass hearing for 150 people in one day, labeling it a "farce" or "eye-wash" that failed to account for the "civil death" resulting from termination

The 7–8 month delay in passing orders resulted in a cryptic analysis that failed to consider the material in proper perspective

the Court observed that the alleged irregularities—such as roster management and recruitment permissions—were administrative failures of the Management, not the teachers

Since no fraud or misrepresentation was alleged or proven, the Education Officer had no authority to revoke approvals granted by a predecessor, especially after the teachers had served for over a decade

The Court held that the individual approvals and Shalarth-IDs of the Petitioner teachers must be restored immediately, and they are entitled to their salaries as they worked without a break in service

While the Court granted the authorities liberty to issue fresh, specific notices, it mandated that such notices must be restricted to grounds of fraud or misrepresentation. Administrative irregularities may be penalized by imposing costs on the Management but cannot result in the questioning of the teachers' approvals in the absence of fraud