SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Bom) 168

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
Hemant Baliram Deore – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 3839, 3840, 3841 of 2026
Decided On : 27-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Pranita Hingmire
For the Respondents: P.P. Kakade, A.R. Deolekar, A.K. Naik, V.G. Badgujar

Cancellation of teacher approvals invalid due to vague show-cause notices, sham mass hearings, delay, and condonable management irregularities without fraud; protects long-serving employees, restores approvals.

Headnote:(A) Teacher Appointments - Approval Cancellation - Show-cause notices must specify particular irregularities or fraud to enable response; vague notices invalid as they deny proper opportunity - Mass hearings for 150 employees in one day, limited to written forms, inadequate and farcical, especially for long-serving employees facing termination - Delay of 7-8 months between hearing and order indicates non-application of mind - Deficiencies like reservation roster non-adherence, lack of prior permission, TET absence are irregularities condonable absent fraud or misrepresentation by employees; fault lies with management, punishable separately - TET deficiency curable within two years per Supreme Court directions. (Paras 12-35)

(B) Administrative Orders - Review of Prior Approvals - Predecessor approvals, even erroneous, not revocable without proof of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression; length of service beyond decade protects against penalization for management lapses. (Paras 30-33)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners appointed as assistant teachers on unaided basis in 2012-13 pursuant to newspaper advertisements, confirmed, transferred to aided posts, approvals and Shalarth-IDs granted after years of service. Show-cause notices issued in 2025 without specific charges, hearings held en masse on single day collecting forms, orders in Jan 2026 cancelling approvals citing roster issues, no TET, unverified attendance.

Findings of Court:
Impugned orders quashed; prior approvals and Shalarth-IDs restored with continuity of service and salary entitlement. Authorities at liberty to issue fresh specific notices targeting fraud or penalize management for irregularities.

Issues: (a) Specificity of show-cause notices; (b) Delay between hearing and orders; (c) Adequacy of mass hearings; (d) Illegality vs condonable irregularities; (e) Fraud or misrepresentation allegations.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings vitiated by procedural infirmities; cancellation unsustainable without confronting specific charges and proving employee complicity in fraud; irregularities attributable to management do not justify employee termination after long service; proper hearings essential pre-civil death via termination.

Result: Writ petitions partly allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners' appointments, approvals, and show-cause timelines established. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. impugned cancellations based on roster, tet, verification irregularities. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. parties' contentions; five procedural-merits issues framed. (Para 11 , 12)
4. vague notices fail to provide specific allegations opportunity. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. seven-month delay shows inadequate material consideration. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
6. mass batch hearings constitute inadequate opportunity hearing. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
7. irregularities condonable without fraud; penalize management not employees. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
8. quash orders, restore approvals and continuous service. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)

JUDGMENT :

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 (Hemant Baliram Deore and Sangita Motiram Patil) and 16th 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 30th 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 11th 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 14th 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.

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. In the case of Sangita Motiram Patil, the grounds for cancellation of approval and the Shalarth-ID, are as under :

10. In the case of Nilesh Mohan Koli, the impugned order carries the following reasons :

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 is no ground for interference in these matters. The Competent Authority has taken into account every fact of the ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top