The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that educational authorities cannot arbitrarily cancel approval orders for teacher appointments after prolonged periods, especially without evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of facts. This judgment underscores the importance of natural justice and procedural fairness in administrative decisions affecting employment rights, setting a precedent for similar cases involving retrospective cancellation of approvals.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Krunal Subhash Nikam, was initially appointed as a Shikshan Sevak on an unaided post by Respondent No. 7 (a private educational institution) on 10.06.2011. After completing four years of service, he was transferred to an aided post on 01.03.2015 pursuant to a resolution passed by Respondent No. 7. Respondent No. 5 (Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon) granted approval for this transfer on 15.01.2016.
Key Facts
- The petitioner holds qualifications of B.Sc. B.Ed.
- Appointment order for unaided post: 10.06.2011
- Transfer to aided post: 01.03.2015
- Approval for transfer by Education Officer: 15.01.2016
- Impugned cancellation orders: 30.06.2022 and 29.07.2022 by Respondent No. 3 (Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division)
- Grounds for cancellation:
- Appointment against a reserved post despite belonging to the open category
- Non-compliance with procedural requirements (prior permission for advertisement not obtained)
Procedural History
- 10.06.2011: Initial appointment on unaided post
- 01.03.2015: Transfer to aided post by Respondent No. 7
- 15.01.2016: Approval granted by Respondent No. 5 (Education Officer)
- 30.06.2022: First impugned order cancelling approval
- 29.07.2022: Second impugned order reaffirming cancellation
- 2023: Writ Petition (WP No. 6563/2023) filed before Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the impugned orders dated 30.06.2022 and 29.07.2022
- Restoration of the approval order dated 15.01.2016
- Directions to Respondents No. 3 and 4 to restore the approval and pay regular salary along with arrears from 01.10.2022, including consequential benefits
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether educational authorities can cancel an approval order for a teacher’s transfer/appointment after a prolonged period (7-11 years) without evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of facts, and solely on grounds of procedural irregularities or non-adherence to reservation policies.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The impugned orders were passed without authority, as Respondent No. 3 lacked the power to review or cancel approvals granted by the Education Officer.
- Cancellation of approvals after 7-11 years violates principles of natural justice and legitimate expectation.
- No fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression was attributed to the petitioner or Respondent No. 7.
- Relied on judgments:
- Amol Baban Sangar v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2022 DGLS (Bom.) 1088)
- Pandurang Narayan Kanekar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2022 DGLS (Bom.) 784)
For the Respondent (State)
- Respondent No. 3 rightly considered the irregularities in the petitioner’s transfer and approval, including:
- Non-adherence to reservation policies
- Failure to obtain prior permission before issuing the appointment advertisement
- Cited Government Resolutions (GRs) dated 05.11.2009, 06.02.2012, and 23.08.2017 to justify the cancellation of approval.
The Court's Analysis
The Court critically examined the scope of authority of Respondent No. 3 and the legality of retrospective cancellations. Key observations included:
-
Lack of Authority to Review Approvals: The Court relied on Amol Baban Sangar to hold that the Deputy Director of Education lacks the power to review or cancel approvals granted by the Education Officer. The Shalarth system (a computerized salary payment system) was introduced via GR dated 07.11.2012 solely to streamline salary payments, not to empower authorities to revisit approval orders.
"Nowhere in the Government Resolution is there any clause which requires the Deputy Director, Education, for that matter any other Officer of the State, to reconsider the issue of grant of approval, nor does the Government Resolution vest any Officer with any authority to review the order of grant of approval to the appointment of any school employee by the Education Officer."
-
Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice: The Court emphasized that administrative orders cannot be cancelled retrospectively without express statutory authority or evidence of fraud. The impugned orders were passed 7-11 years after the approval, violating the petitioner’s legitimate expectation of continued employment.
"The power of review of any administrative order, if at all it exists, must be expressly created in the applicable statute because it has the potential of taking away a right vested in a school employee."
-
Distinction Between Approval and Appointment: The Court distinguished between approval of appointment (granted by the Education Officer) and legality of the selection process (which may involve reservation policies). While procedural irregularities in selection could be scrutinized, they cannot justify cancellation of approval after years without evidence of fraud.
"Proper course for him is to confine himself to parameters of the said Government Resolution and satisfy himself as to whether or not the employee fulfills the conditions of the Government Resolution."
-
Application of Precedents: The Court applied the ratio from Pandurang Narayan Kanekar, where it was held that:
- Show-cause notices for cancellation must specify concrete grounds and legal basis.
- Deemed confirmation under Section 5(2A) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) occurs after three years of probation, making the employee permanent.
- Vague orders cannot dislodge a deemed confirmed employee.
The Verdict
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and passed the following orders:
- Quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 30.06.2022 and 29.07.2022 passed by Respondent No. 3.
- Restored the approval order dated 15.01.2016 granted by Respondent No. 5.
- Directed Respondents No. 3 and 4 to restore the petitioner’s approval and pay regular salary along with arrears from 01.10.2022, including consequential benefits.
- No order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Administrative Authorities Cannot Act Beyond Statutory Mandate
- Educational authorities (e.g., Deputy Directors, Education Officers) cannot cancel approval orders unless expressly empowered by statute or Government Resolution.
- Government Resolutions cannot confer review powers unless explicitly stated. In this case, the GR dated 07.11.2012 was limited to salary payment systems, not approval cancellations.
- Practitioners should challenge retrospective cancellations by arguing:
- Lack of statutory authority for review
- Violation of legitimate expectation and natural justice
Retrospective Cancellations Require Evidence of Fraud
- Cancellation of approvals after prolonged periods (e.g., 7-11 years) is presumptively illegal unless:
- There is evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression by the employee or appointing authority
- The statute or GR expressly permits review of approval orders
- Show-cause notices must specify detailed grounds and legal basis for cancellation. Vague orders (e.g., "non-adherence to reservation") are unsustainable.
Deemed Confirmation Protects Employees
- Under Section 5(2A) of the MEPS Act, employees become permanent after three years of probation.
- Deemed confirmed employees enjoy stronger protection against retrospective cancellations. Authorities must:
- Issue specific show-cause notices detailing alleged irregularities
- Pass well-reasoned orders based on factual and legal findings
- Avoid vague or generic grounds for cancellation
