Bombay High Court
HEMANT BALIRAM DEORE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that, in the absence of specific allegations and proof of fraud or misrepresentation, the vague show‑cause notices and perfunctory hearings could not justify cancellation of the teachers' approvals, and therefore the impugned orders were set aside.
Summary
The petitioners, three teachers appointed on unaided and later aided posts, challenged orders cancelling their approvals and Shalarth‑IDs on grounds of alleged irregularities such as non‑compliance with reservation rosters, lack of TET qualification and absence of prior permission. The State authorities had issued vague show‑cause notices and conducted a single‑day hearing where 150 employees merely filled out questionnaire‑style forms without substantive oral hearing. The Court examined five issues concerning the specificity of the notices, delay in adjudication, adequacy of the hearing procedure, the nature of the alleged irregularities, and any fraud or misrepresentation. Relying on precedents that require specific allegations and proof of fraud before revoking approvals, the Court found the notices unsustainable, the hearings improper, and the alleged irregularities condonable. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed, the teachers' approvals and Shalarth‑IDs restored, and their salaries reinstated.
Issues considered
- Whether the show‑cause notices contained specific instances of irregularities enabling the employees and management to respond?
- Whether the long lapse of time between the hearing and the impugned orders defeats fairness?
- Whether conducting a single‑day hearing for 150 employees with only written questionnaire submissions constitutes a proper hearing?
- Whether the deficiencies in the appointments amount to illegalities or merely condonable irregularities?
- Whether any fraud or misrepresentation was alleged in the show‑cause notices or conclusions?
Subjects
- show‑cause notice
- teacher appointment
- reservation roster
- TET qualification
- procedural fairness
- administrative law
- employment termination
- educational institutions
Judgment
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
Digitally signed
SUNNY
by SUNNY
ANKUSHRAO
ANKUSHRAO THOTE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
THOTE Date:
2026.04.02
10:30:55 +0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(917) WRIT PETITION NO. 3839 OF 2026
1. Hemant Baliram Deore
Age : 38 years, occu. Service,
R/at: At post Umrane
Tal. Deola, Dist. Nashik.
2. Gramshikshan Samitee Umrane
Through its President/Chairman/Secretary,
Having office at Umarane, Tal. Deola,
Dist. Nashik.
3. The Principal
Shree Chatrapati Shivaji Maratha High
School, Umarane, Tal. Deola, Dist. Nashik ….Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary
School Education Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai – 400 032.
2. The Deputy Director Education
The office of Education Commissioner
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Dr. Anni Besant Marg, Pune – 411 001.
3. The Deputy Director Nashik Region,
Divisional Commissioner Office Premises,
Nashik Road, Nashik – 422101
4. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nashik, Dist: Nashik
5. The Superintendent Pay and Provident
Fund Unit (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Nashik ….Respondents
SUNNY THOTE 1 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
AND
(918) WRIT PETITION NO. 3840 OF 2026
1. Smt. Sangita Motiram Patil.
Age : 49, occu. Service,
R/at: At Post Umarane,
Tal. Deola, Dist. Nashik
2. Gramshikshan Samitee Umrane
Through its President/Chairman/Secretary,
Having office at Umarane, Tal. Deola,
Dist. Nashik.
3. The Principal
Shree Chatrapati Shivaji Maratha High
School, Umarane, Tal. Deola, Dist. Nashik ….Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary
School Education Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai – 400 032.
2. The Deputy Director Education
The office of Education Commissioner
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Dr. Anni Besant Marg, Pune – 411001.
3. The Deputy Director Nashik Region,
Divisional Commissioner Office Premises,
Nashik Road, Nashik – 422101
4. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nashik, Dist: Nashik
5. The Superintendent Pay and Provident
Fund Unit (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Nashik ….Respondents
SUNNY THOTE 2 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
AND
(919) WRIT PETITION NO. 3841 OF 2026
1. Nilesh Mohan Koli
Age : 38 years, occu. Service,
R/at: Flat No.A-802, Malpani Saffron,
Near Express Inn Hotel, Pathardi phata,
Nashik-422010
2. Maharashtra Shikshan Vikas Mandal, Nashik
Through its President/Chairman/Secretary,
Having office at Kondai Sadan, Old
Gangapur Naka, Nashik-422005
3. The Principal
New English School Waghere
Tal. Igatpuri, Dist. Nashik ….Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary
School Education Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai – 400 032.
2. The Deputy Director Education
The office of Education Commissioner
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Dr. Anni Besant Marg, Pune – 411001.
3. The Deputy Director Nashik Region,
Divisional Commissioner Office Premises,
Nashik Road, Nashik – 422101
4. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nashik, Dist: Nashik
5. The Superintendent Pay and Provident
Fund Unit (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Nashik ….Respondents
SUNNY THOTE 3 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
****
Ms. Pranita Hingmire, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. A.R. Deolekar, AGP for the
Respondent/State in WP/3839/2026.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. A.K. Naik, AGP for the
Respondent/State in WP/3840/2026.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. V.G. Badgujar, AGP for the
Respondent/State in WP/3841/2026.
****
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 27th MARCH, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
by the consent of the parties.
2. In all these matters, the Petitioners are individual
employees, along with their Managements. The Respondents are the
State Authorities on whose behalf the learned Additional G.P./AGPs
have appeared.
3. Pursuant to the advertisement published in ‘Dainik
Gavkari’ and ‘Dainik Punyanagari’ dated 12th October, 2012
SUNNY THOTE 4 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
(Hemant Baliram Deore and Sangita Motiram Patil), and 16 th June,
2013 (Nilesh Mohan Koli), which are widely circulated newspapers
in Nashik, they were considered for employment along with all the
Applicants.
4. Two employees, namely Hemant Baliram Deore and
Sangita Motiram Patil, were appointed on 30 th October, 2012 as
Assistant Teachers on unaided basis. They were confirmed in
employment and they were granted approval on unaided basis on
14th August, 2014 and on transfer to the aided establishment as
Shikshan Sevak, on 19th April, 2018. Nilesh Mohan Koli was
appointed on 24th June, 2013 on unaided basis as an Assistant
Teacher. His first approval on unaided basis is dated 8th July, 2013.
He was transferred on the aided post on 11 th June, 2018 and received
approval on aided basis, 9th July, 2019. Subsequently, the
Petitioners, Hemant Baliram Deore and Sangita Motiram Patil, were
granted permanent approval on 6th November, 2020.
5. Hemant Baliram Deore was granted Shalarth-ID on 14 th
August, 2019. Sangita Motiram Patil was granted Shalarth-ID on
24th September, 2019, and Nilesh Mohan Koli was granted Shalarth-
ID on 14th September, 2019.
SUNNY THOTE 5 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
6. All these three employees, along with the Management,
received show-cause notices dated 30th April, 2025, 15th May, 2025
and 14th May, 2025, respectively.
7. A hearing in all these matters was conducted by the
Joint Director Education at Pune, who had issued the notices to
these Petitioners. The hearing was concluded on 5th August, 2025. In
all these cases, the impugned orders are dated 23rd January, 2026.
These orders were transmitted to the Deputy Director of Education
on 10th February, 2026. All these orders were served upon the
Petitioners on 13th March, 2026, and thereafter, these Petitions were
filed.
8. In the case of Hemant Baliram Deore, the impugned
order cancelling the approval is passed on the following grounds :
9 Impugned 1. As per GR dated 06-02-2012 no permission
order taken.
grounds 2. As per GR dated 28-06-2016 no permission
taken and inquire about surplus teacher.
3. The Petitioner is not TET qualified.
9. In the case of Sangita Motiram Patil, the grounds for
cancellation of approval and the Shalarth-ID, are as under :
SUNNY THOTE 6 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
9 Impugned 1. Appointment is not done as per the Roster,
order as, as per the roster, there was no vacancy for
grounds Open Category.
2. As per Gr dated 13/02/2013 and 30/06/2016
the petitioner No.1 is not cleared TET
examination.
10. In the case of Nilesh Mohan Koli, the impugned order
carries the following reasons :
9 Impugned 1. At the time of appointment of the Petitioner
order No.1 on unaided basis the roster dated 03-01-
grounds 2019 is checked from BC cell and as per that
there was no vacancy for SBC and irrespective
of that the appointment of the Petitioner No.1
is made.
2. As per the GR dated 06.02-2012 there is
violation of point A(3). The Respondent No.2
observed all such reasons and cancelled the
individual approval of the Petitioner No.1
granted on unaided basis.
11. We have considered the strenuous submissions of the
parties. The learned Additional G.P/AGPs have vehemently opposed
these Petitions. It is canvassed that the Competent Authority has
followed the due procedure. Notices for hearing were issued.
Written submissions were accepted, not only from the employee, but
also from the Management. The Competent Authority has applied its
mind to the rival submissions and passed a speaking order.
Considering that the Competent Authority has considered all the
contentions of the parties and has assigned justifiable reasons, there
SUNNY THOTE 7 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
is no ground for interference in these matters. The Competent
Authority has taken into account every fact of the case and having
noticed irregularities, has passed appropriate orders. He had no
option, but to cancel the approvals and the Shalarth-ID, since he
noticed irregularities in the matter.
FIVE ISSUES ARE TO BE ANSWERED
12. We find that there are five issues to be considered in
these cases, which are as under:
(a) Whether the show-cause notices contained
specific instances of irregularities, to enable the employees
as well as the Management to respond to the specific
allegations?
(b) Whether there is a large passage of time between
the closing of the matters and the date of the passing of the
impugned orders?
(c) Whether the hearings conducted by the
Competent Authority, by calling 150 employees along with
their Management and Headmasters, on a single day and
collecting their written submissions filled into the
SUNNY THOTE 8 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
prescribed formats appended to the show-cause notice, can
be said to be appropriate hearings?
(d) Whether the deficiencies noticed by the
Competent Authorities in the appointments of the
employees, amount to illegalities or irregularities, and
whether any of such irregularities were condonable?
(e) Whether there are any allegations of fraud or
misrepresentation in the show-cause notices or conclusions
against the Employees?
FIRST ISSUE
13. With regard to the first issue, we find from the show
cause notices issued to the Petitioner employees, that there are
hardly any details worth mentioning in the notice in order to enable
the noticees to understand or gather as to what are the reasons or
grounds on which the notices have been issued for the purpose of
cancellation of approvals. If the Marathi paragraph in the notice is
to be translated in English, it would make out the following
meaning:
Taking into account Reference Serial No. 2
(Corrigendum), an officer who is one level senior
SUNNY THOTE 9 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
shall conduct the hearing with regard to Reference
Serial Nos. 3 to 5 pertaining to irregularities in the
approvals granted. The hearing is scheduled as per
the following programme, and the Education
Officer (Secondary), the then Education Officer
(Secondary), the President/Secretary, the
Headmaster of the school, and the Petitioner
employees, shall show cause as to why the
approval granted to the employees should not be
cancelled. If any of the parties fail to appear in the
matter, an ex parte decision would be arrived at.
Hearing Date: 07/05/2025
Time: 10:30 to 5:00
Venue: Naurasji Wadia College, Pune – 411001
14. It does not require any debate that the above show
cause notice does not even whisper of any specific charge of
irregularity, much less, point out any particular illegality or fraud
alleged to have been committed while granting approval to the
Petitioner employees.
15. In Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore versus
Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. and Others, (2007) 5 SCC 388, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that when the show cause notice
does not indicate anything specific regarding the role of the noticee,
SUNNY THOTE 10 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
such a show cause notice, being vague and lacking in details, can be
held to be sufficient to conclude that the noticee was not given a
proper opportunity to meet the allegations. For ready reference, we
reproduce paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 of the said judgment
hereunder:
“13. We find that in the show-cause notice there
was nothing specific as to the role of the
respondents, if any. The arrangements as alleged
have not been shown to be within the knowledge
or at the behest or with the connivance of the
respondents. Independent arrangements were
entered into by the respondents with the
franchise-holder (sic franchiser). On a perusal of
the show-cause notice the stand of the
respondents clearly gets established.
14. There is no allegation of the respondents
being parties to any arrangement. In any event,
no material in that regard was placed on record.
The show-cause notice is the foundation on
which the Department has to build up its case. If
the allegations in the show-cause notice are not
specific and are on the contrary vague, lack
details and/or unintelligible that is sufficient to
hold that the noticee was not given proper
opportunity to meet the allegations indicated in
the show-cause notice. In the instant case, what
the appellant has tried to highlight is the alleged
connection between the various concerns. That is
not sufficient to proceed against the respondents
unless it is shown that they were parties to the
arrangements, if any. As no sufficient material
much less any material has been placed on record
to substantiate the stand of the appellant, the
conclusions of the Commissioner as affirmed by
CEGAT cannot be faulted.”
SUNNY THOTE 11 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
16. We also find from the impugned order that batches of
150 employees were given time between 10:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
on a particular day to address the authority. Each of these noticees
was permitted to tender their explanation by filling up the
cyclostyled format attached to the show cause notice. Not a single
teacher was granted a hearing in the proceeding, save and except,
the liberty of tendering the filled-in form, which was in the nature of
a questionnaire.
17. So also, it appears that the incumbent Education
Officer, as well as the then Education Officers, who are alleged to
have resorted to illegalities and irregularities, were absent, since
they were attending a similar proceeding being conducted by
another nominated officer who had published the schedule for a
particular institution and employees, under the same Zilla Parishad.
These officers, therefore, could not be present at two places at the
same time and on the same day.
18. In view of the above, we find fault with the show cause
notices issued to these Petitioners. Such show cause notices cannot
be sustained. Thus, our answer to issue no. 1.
SUNNY THOTE 12 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
SECOND ISSUE
19. With regard to the second issue, we find from the
impugned orders that the hearings were held on a particular date,
and the impugned judgment was delivered after around 7 to 8
months. In the impugned judgment, the forms filled in by the
Management, the employees, and the Head Master, etc., have been
reproduced in the order. Under the caption of analysis, the
nominated officer has mentioned three clauses. Finally, by
mentioning three clauses in a single sentence, the conclusions have
been drawn.
20. By way of an operative order, the approvals granted
have been canceled, and a further direction is issued that their
salaries should be immediately stopped.
21. Considering that four pages of the impugned order
contain copying of the replies of the parties, and 3/4th of the last
page contains cryptic analysis and conclusion, we find that,
probably because of the passage of 7 to 8 months, the entire material
placed before the authority has not been considered in a proper
perspective. Proper consideration of the material available and
SUNNY THOTE 13 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
reasons to support the conclusion, are the factors which indicate
application of mind. Assigning reasons for justifying the
conclusions, is a Sine-Quo-Non while passing the impugned order.
The impugned order would, therefore, be faulted on this count as
well. Hence, our answer to issue no. 2.
THIRD ISSUE
22. Insofar as the third issue is concerned, whether the
competent authority was justified in inviting 150 employees in a
single day between 10:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., along with their
Managements, Head Masters, Ex-Education Officer, and the
Incumbent Education Officer, and whether the procedure of
collecting their written submissions in the cyclostyled forms
appended to the show cause notice, can be said to be a proper
hearing or a farce.
23. It is anybody’s guess that if 150 employees are to enter
the venue and tender their filled-in forms/written submissions, as
also by the Management and Head Master, and none of them was
allowed to express any view, but, had to leave the venue, such a
hearing cannot be said to be an appropriate hearing. More so, when
the nominated authority was considering cancellation of the
SUNNY THOTE 14 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
approvals of the teachers, cancellation of their Shalarth-IDs, and
which would result in their termination from employment.
Termination from service amounts to civil death. We, therefore,
express our serious displeasure for the manner in which the hearing
has been conducted.
24. Taking into account that these Petitioner teachers were
working for between 10 to 15 years, there was no reason for the
nominated authority to resort to such a ‘undue-haste’ procedure of
conducting the hearings, which clearly appears to be a farce or an
eye-wash. When these teachers were working for more than a
decade and half, proper hearings should have been conducted,
keeping in view that termination from service would amount to a
civil death for such teachers. We, therefore, disapprove of the
manner of conducting the hearing. The hearing is, therefore, faulty
and cannot be sustained. Hence, our answer to issue no. 3.
FOURTH AND THE FIFTH ISSUE
25. Insofar as the fourth and fifth issues are concerned, the
impugned orders before us in these three Petitions indicate that the
reservation roster was not strictly followed by the Management. The
SUNNY THOTE 15 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
Education Officer did not verify whether the Petitioner teachers
were actually working or not. Some of the teachers had not passed
their TET.
26. We quite see that if these were the grounds on which
the approvals and the Shalarth-IDs had been cancelled, they should
have been confronted to the Petitioner teachers, as well as the
Management. None of them were aware of the grounds on which the
approvals had been cancelled.
27. For example, if the issue of TET was to be raised, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has already delivered a judgment in
Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust v/s. State of Maharashtra and
Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912, concluding that those teachers
who do not have TET, should acquire the TET qualification within
two years of the date of the judgment, that is, from 01.09.2025. This
issue has also been dealt with by this Court in a judgment delivered
in Sagar Dattatray Chorghe & Others v/s. State of Maharashtra &
Others, (Writ Petition No. 7943 of 2024 and Writ Petition No. 861
of 2025) to which one of us (Ravindra V. Ghuge,) is a party, holding
that a candidate who had secured the State TET or CTET, even after
SUNNY THOTE 16 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
the cut-off date of 31.03.2019, would now be eligible to continue in
employment in the light of Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust (supra).
28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that if a
teacher has less than five years to retirement and does not desire
promotion, he would continue in his employment, without the TET
qualification, subject to the condition that he would be deprived of
higher service benefits, promotion, revised pay fixation, and
increments.
29. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners is right in
contending that if the show cause notice had indicated the grounds
on which the Petitioner was called upon to show cause, the
Petitioner would at least have come to know the reasons for which
the show cause notice was issued. Neither the employee, the
Management, nor the Head Master was aware of why the show
cause notice had been issued. No fraud or illegality has been
alleged.
30. This Court, [Coram: B.R. Gavai (as His Lordship then
was) & Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ.], in a large batch of cases, has delivered
an order on 01.08.2017 in Writ Petition No. 10133 of 2016 and a
SUNNY THOTE 17 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
group of cases (Mrs. Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others), wherein the issue of cancellation of
approval was dealt with. The conclusions drawn by the Court are set
out in paragraph Nos. 5 to 8, which read as follows:
“5. Affidavit in reply is filed by the Dy.
Education Officer. Perused the reasons given in
the impugned orders. In some cases, it is
submitted that the selection process was
conducted without obtaining prior approval of
the Education Officer; and in some cases it is
stated that though there was a backlog of
reserved category candidates, the candidates
were appointed from open category.
6. We find that it will not be necessary for us to
go into the merits to find out as to whether the
reasons given by the Education Officer in the
affidavit are correct or not. We find that the
petitions deserve to be allowed on short ground
that by the impugned order, Respondent
Education Officer has set aside the order passed
by the earlier Education Officer. As such, the
impugned order revokes the approval granted
by the earlier order passed by the predecessor
in the office of the Respondent Education
Officer. By now, it is settled principle of law
that unless the power of review is specifically
or by necessary implication provided, the
authority cannot review its own order. No
doubt, if an order is obtained by exercising
fraud, it would stand vitiated. However, it is not
the case of the Respondent-Education Officer
that Petitioners have obtained their initial
orders by fraudulent means. If the earlier
Education Officer had granted approval to the
Petitioners' appointment, may be erroneously,
the same cannot be made a ground to recall the
SUNNY THOTE 18 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
same and pass contrary order, unless a case of
fraud, misrepresentation or suppression is made
out. Particularly when most of the Petitioners
have already put in their services for 11 years,
the impugned orders would amount to
penalising them for no fault on their part.
7. In that view of the matter, we find that
the impugned orders dated 30 July, 2016 are
not sustainable in law. We, however, clarify that
if the Education Officer is of the view that in
some of the schools backlog of reserved
category candidates is not properly maintained,
the Education Officer would always be
empowered to insist that hereinafter no
candidate belonging to open category shall be
filled in unless the quota of reserved category
candidates, as per the requirement of MEPS
Act Rules, is fulfilled.
8. Rule is therefore, made absolute in terms of
prayer clause (b) with no orders as to costs. All
the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.”
31. This Court has, therefore, concluded that the approvals
granted cannot be interfered with and cannot be set aside, save and
except for the reason that a fraud has been committed. Even if the
Education Officer granted approval erroneously, the same cannot be
made a ground to recall the approval order and pass a cancellation
order, unless a case of fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression is
established. The length of service of the Petitioners, beyond a
decade, was also considered by the Court.
SUNNY THOTE 19 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
32. A glance at the impugned orders makes it clear that
there is no conclusion by the nominated authority that the Petitioner
employees or the Management have indulged in a fraud or
misrepresentation. The grounds for quashing the approvals are that
the roster reservation was not properly followed, that a candidate
did not have the TET qualification, or that prior permission from the
Education Department for carrying out recruitment was not taken.
33. It must be borne in mind that when these Petitioners
were appointed more than a decade ago, the Pavitra Portal Pranali
was not in vogue; it was brought into effect pursuant to a judgment
of this Court [Coram: B.R. Gavai (as His Lordship then was) &
Indira K. Jain, JJ.] at the Nagpur Bench in Public Interest Litigation
No. 08 of 2015 dated 24.06.2015 (Court on It’s Own Motion V/s.
State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Department of
Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Ors.). There is no conclusion by
the nominated authority that fraud or misrepresentation has been
indulged in, either by the Management or by the teachers.
34. A glance at the impugned order gives us a prima facie
view that the reasons mentioned for cancellation of approval,
SUNNY THOTE 20 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
actually turn upon the conduct of the Management. It was the
Management which can be alleged to have not followed the roster
reservation. It is the Management which can be alleged to have
indulged in an irregularity of not seeking prior permission of the
Education Authority. It could be the Management which can be
alleged to have indulged in an irregularity of publishing the
advertisement in unknown or less circulated news papers, if that be
the case. The Management should have been called upon to explain
its conduct.
35. What has happened is that the nominated authority has
not uttered a word against such a Management. The resultant effect
of cancellation of the approval and Shalarth-ID, is like a death knell
to the employees who are not at fault. They are likely to lose their
employment due to purported irregularities committed by the
Management. We, therefore, conclude that the irregularities were
condonable. If the reservation roster was not followed, the
Management can be mandated to fill-up the backlog of reservation
in future appointments. If advertisements were not published in
widely circulated/approved newspapers by the State, if permission
of the education department was not taken, the constituted authority
SUNNY THOTE 21 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
can contemplate imposing heavy costs on the Management, subject
to an opportunity of hearing to such Managements. Hence, our
answer to issue nos. 4 and 5.
36. In view of the above and taking into account the afore
stated reasons, these three Writ Petitions are partly allowed. The
impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside.
37. Since, the notices are also held to be unsustainable, if
the authorities desire to conduct a proper hearing in these matters,
they are at liberty to issue appropriate show cause notices afresh,
mentioning the specific grounds in each case of the teachers or
Management, as being grounds only towards indicating fraud or
misrepresentation. Any issue touching an irregularity can also be
confronted, but only with the Management and if it is noticed that
the Management has indulged in such irregularities, the authority
would be at liberty to pass orders penalizing the Management by
any appropriate mode or by imposing a heavy cost to be deposited
in the State Exchequer as a donation. But, unless a fraud or
misrepresentation is noticed and the teachers can be held to be
parties to such acts, the approval orders of the Petitioners shall not
SUNNY THOTE 22 of 23
917-918-919-WP-3839-2026-(C).odt
be questioned in view of the law laid down in Mrs. Shivanee
Prasanna Deshpande (supra) and Pramod Prabhakar Pokhale V/s.
State of Maharashtra, (2019) 3 Bom CR 278.
38. Consequentially, the approval orders and the Shalarth-
IDs of these Petitioner teachers are restored. They shall be entitled
to their salaries, as they have been working without a break in
service.
39. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
SUNNY THOTE 23 of 23
Checking your session…