The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) allowed the writ petitions and quashed impugned orders passed by education authorities cancelling approvals of teacher appointments.
The petitioners, a group of eight teachers (including one retired), filed writ petitions challenging the orders dated 24.11.2022 and 30.11.2022 by Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Board, Nagpur and Deputy Director of Education, which retrospectively cancelled approval of their appointments after more than two decades of service. The teachers sought quashing of the impugned orders, restoration of their approvals, and protection of their seniority and service benefits, citing delay, laches, and lack of any fraud in their original appointments.
Petitioners were appointed to teaching posts between 2000–2002 after due advertisement, selection, permission, and roster certification. Their appointments and probation completion were approved by relevant education authorities from 2003 onwards, with regular staff justification and annual inspections.
In 2021 (after over 20 years of service), a junior teacher (Respondent No. 7) raised objections alleging workload and roster irregularities, filed complaints seeking cancellation of petitioners’ approvals and reversal of seniority to benefit his claim for Vice-Principalship. Impugned orders of cancellation and recovery of salary, including stoppage of pension for a retired petitioner, were passed on the basis of an enquiry conducted without verifying decades-old records.
Petitioners cited delay, laches, and absence of fraud, relying on multiple precedents emphasizing that review or recall of approved appointments after such long service is inequitable unless fraud is alleged and proven. They also argued that the complaint stemmed from personal interest of Respondent No. 7, not public interest.
The Bench comprising Justice M.S. Jawalkar and Justice Pravin S. Patil found that the authorities (Board and Deputy Director) lacked both the statutory jurisdiction and proper basis, and committed procedural errors in constituting enquiry committees and acted without proper record verification. The court highlighted that repeated staff justifications and roster certifications existed, the records were not checked in the present inquiry, and procedural fairness was ignored.
It was also noted that annual staff inspections never raised objections, and the complaint was grossly delayed. These delay and laches were fatal to the maintainability of the challenge, especially since the impugned actions were motivated by the complainant’s personal ambition (for Vice-Principalship) and not public interest.
The Court cited well-established principles from cases such as Pandurang Kanekar v. State of Maharashtra, Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande, Ansari Amina Muzhar Ali, K.R. Mudgal, and others, holding that approvals cannot be cancelled or reviewed after prolonged service unless fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of facts is specifically alleged and proven.
In result, the Court quashed the orders cancelling petitioner teachers’ approvals, restored their service approvals and seniority, and directed Respondent No. 7 (complainant) to pay Rs. 5,000 in costs to each petitioner within a month. The Court condemned the unnecessary hardship, insecurity, and mental agony caused to teachers, some on the verge of retirement or already retired, by the authorities’ acted-at-the-behest retrospective action.
It held that the review power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or after such a lapse of time, especially when no fraud or misconduct is alleged. The judgment emphatically reasserts the principle that administrative stability and legitimate expectations of long-serving employees cannot be upset for personal motives or without substantive basis.
Case relied on:
1. Pandurang Narayan Kanekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, Writ Petition No. 219/2022
2. Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande vs. State of Maharashtra & others, Writ Petition No. 10133/2016
3. Ansari Amina Muzhar Ali vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, Writ Petition No. 1380/2019
4. Bhushan Vikas Gawad vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, Writ Petition No. 1491/2021
5. Nishant Namdeorao Gatkal & another vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, Writ Petition No. 2492/2024
6. Union of India & others vs. N. Murugesan ETC, 2022 (2) SCC 25
7. Food Corporation of India vs. Ashis Kumar Ganguly, 2009 (7) SCC 734
8. R. Mudgal vs. R.P. Singh, 1986 (4) SCC 531
9. State of Tamil Nadu v. Seshachalam, (2007) 10 SCC 137
10. Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs CBI, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 116
Appearances:
S/Shri Apurv De and A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocates for the respective Petitioners
Smt. S.V. Kolhe, AGP for the Respondent/State
S/Shri P.A. Gode, N.R. Saboo and P.B. Patil, Advocates for the respective Respondents
