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
| 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
Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore vs. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. and Others
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....
Appointments against reserved posts must adhere strictly to statutory procedures to avoid discrimination and nepotism.
An Education Officer cannot unilaterally revoke prior approvals for educational appointments without demonstrating fraud or misrepresentation, highlighting the necessity of legal process and justific....
The Education Officer's order cancelling the approval to the petitioner's appointment was illegal and led to the petitioner's wrongful termination, warranting the court's intervention and relief to t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that accrued benefits cannot be taken away without giving the concerned person a reasonable opportunity to defend specific allegations, and specifi....
Termination orders must be communicated to be effective; failure to do so renders them invalid, affirming the statutory rights of employees to their positions and benefits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the management must adhere to the rules and regulations for the appointment of staff in private schools, including the obligation to ascertain....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.