An Education Officer cannot unilaterally revoke prior approvals for educational appointments without demonstrating fraud or misrepresentation, highlighting the necessity of legal process and justification for such actions.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE , J.

1. In these cases, the private individual Respondent has been agitating for his personal demands and has threatened the department that he would commence a hunger fast. He orally leveled allegations against the Petitioners. On such allegations, the Deputy Director has suspended the Shalarth-ID of these Petitioners. There is no dispute that their approvals are intact and all of them are in service and discharging their duties.

2. In the above backdrop, we had granted ad-interim relief to the Petitioners on 3^rd July, 2025 (Ganesh Gorkshnath Weljale & Kailash Anil Thorat Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.), by staying the impugned orders. Since they have been working, we had directed that their salaries shall be paid to them on month to month basis.

3. On 19^th November, 2025, two more Petitions were taken up for hearing (in all, these four Petitions) and we granted the same ad-interim relief to these Petitioners as well.

4. We have heard the learned Advocates for the Petitioners and the learned AGPs, who have made valiant attempts to defend the impugned orders. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submit that Respondent Nos.6 to 8 are formal parties. The grievance of the Petitioners is that though they have been working ever since they have been granted approvals for their appointments, which are intact, the Deputy Director has temporarily suspended their Shalarth-IDs due to which their salaries were stopped. The learned AGPs submit that the impugned orders are interlocutory orders.

5. We have been guided by a Judgment delivered by this Court [Coram: B. R. GAVAI (as His Lordship then was) and RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.] dated 01.08.2017 delivered in WP No. 10133 of 2016 (Mrs. Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and connected matters, which is as under :-

“1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of notice for the Respondent-State; and Mr. Chetan Patil and R. A. Naik waives service of notice for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the respective petitions. By consent of parties, petitions are taken up for final hearing.

2. Since facts in all the petitions are common, all the petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the facts in Writ Petition No. 10133 of 2016. The Petitioner came to be appointed as Shikshan Sevak on 3^rd November, 2009 against a seat which is available for the open category. On 13^th of July, 2010 Respondent No. 2 granted approval to the appointment of Petitioner as Shikshan Sevak. After three years satisfactory completion as Shikshan Sevak by the Petitioner, Respondent No. 5 submitted proposal to the Respondent No. 2 for approval. The Education Officer vide order dated 5^th March, 2013 granted approval to the Petitioner as Assistant Teacher from 3.11.2012 in open category. By the impugned order dated 30^th July, 2016, the approval which was given to the appointment of the Petitioner as the Assistant Teacher has been cancelled. Being aggrieved thereby, present petition is filed.

4. In all other petitions, though the dates of initial appointment as Shikshan Sevak, the dates of approval and appointment as Assistant Teacher of the Petitioners in other petitions are different to some extent, however, order cancelling the approval is of same date i.e. 30^th July, 2016.

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 c