Teachers/Staff Cannot Be Blamed For Systemic Flaws When They Had No Role To Play: Bombay High Court Quashes Vague Approval Cancellation Orders
The Court ruled that long-standing employment approvals cannot be set aside due to administrative errors unless an individual case of fraud is explicitly established.
The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench has held that the state administration cannot arbitrarily cancel the employment approvals of teachers after decades of uninterrupted service to mask its own departmental inefficiencies. The Bench heavily censured the state's recourse to an expedited inquiry process, labelling it a farce and an eyewash designed to bypass meaningful hearings.
The Court noted that administrative mechanisms like the Pavitra Portal, Shalarth ID delays, and un-updated UDISE+ platforms were plagued by internal systemic flaws for which teachers bear no responsibility. The Bench said that while the department retains the liberty to penalise management or recover losses from its own erring officers for regulatory deviations, it cannot abruptly terminate the approvals of teachers who have likely crossed the age threshold to secure alternative employment.
Justice M. S. Jawalkar and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande in a batch of petitions, observed, “…Even if there are some instances noticed by the Department, it does not give such power to take such arbitrary action against all the employees. It is admitted fact that Pavitra Portal though installed not functioning for many years. Even there was huge pendency of proposals for Shalarth IDs. UDISE+ is also not updated and many institutions requested for correction in the said Portal. Thus, for the flaws in the system the teachers/staff cannot be blamed specifically when they are having no role to play. We are of the firm opinion that the office of respondents are not in order and they are blaming the teachers/staff”.
Advocate H.S. Chitalye appeared for the various petitioners and Senior Advocate M.M. Sudame, D.V. Chauhan, Government Pleader appeared for the respondents.
The brief facts involved a large cluster of school teachers who had been validly appointed and were continuously serving in various educational institutions for over 10 to 15 years with official departmental approvals.
In March 2025, the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, along with the Superintendent of the Pay and Provident Fund Unit, abruptly withheld their regular salaries and subsequently issued communications cancelling their long-standing employment approvals. These drastic actions were initiated under the cover of mass, non-specific show-cause notices that directed nearly 150 teachers to fill out complex 22-point forms on a single day, without specifying any individual charges or detailing any specific acts of misconduct against them.
Thereafter, the aggrieved teachers and school managements approached the High Court by filing a massive batch of writ petitions to challenge the sudden cessation of their incomes and the ultimate cancellation of their approvals.
The state authorities attempted to justify the summary procedures by citing external government resolutions and general departmental cleaning operations. However, the High Court scrutinized the swift administrative action and found it to be completely identical to past flawed procedures that had already been discredited by the Principal Seat, thereby rendering the subsequent cancellation orders entirely unsustainable in law.
The Court observed that the impugned show-cause notices lacked specific charges or details, making them completely unintelligible and incapable of being properly answered by the noticees. The Bench noted that the inquiry officer operated in complete violation of the governing Government Resolution dated June 10, 2022, which strictly mandates that the original approving officer must be present and a detailed, reasoned interim order must be communicated before proposals are held in abeyance.
Agreeing with the settled principles, the Court clarified that any minor operational irregularities are condonable and cannot be attributed to employees who have dedicated years of service. The Court remarked that the department’s own offices were not in order, and they were unfairly shifting the blame onto the teaching staff for the state's non-functional portals and delayed databases.
“It is observed by the Court that taking into account that these petitioners-teachers were working for more than 10 to 15 years, there was no reason for the nominated authority to resort such ‘undue haste’ procedure of conducting the hearings, which clearly appears to be a farce or an eyewash. It is held that the hearing is therefore, faulty and cannot be sustained. Moreover, the Principal Seat also observed that even if there are some irregularities, those are condonable and not attributable to the employees, who are serving since last more than 10 to 15 years. There are no allegations of fraud or misrepresentation in the show cause notice or any conclusion against the petitioners-employees”, the Bench observed.
“It is specifically mentioned that if detail enquiry has to be conducted, the concerned employee, the concerned Management, educational institution so also the officer, who have issued individual approval, were required to be noticed and after hearing them, detailed reasoned order shall be passed. Thus, it is clear that in absence of officer, who has issued the approval orders, the enquiry is not as per the provisions or as per the GR and in complete violation of GR”, the Bench further observed.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the writ petitions and explicitly quashed and set aside the impugned show-cause notices and the subsequent cancellation communications dated March 18, 2025, April 29, 2025, and May 2–3, 2025.
The Court restored the Shalarth IDs and individual approval orders of the petitioner-teachers, commanding the authorities to immediately calculate and clear all stopped salaries from March 2025 onwards. The Bench granted the state liberty to issue fresh, individualized show-cause notices only if they possess specific grounds indicating fraud or misrepresentation, while explicitly rejecting the Additional Government Pleader's request to keep the judgment in abeyance.
Cause Title: Badri Kondu Chavhan & Others v. The State of Maharashtra & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:6455-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioners: H.S. Chitalye and P.S. Dhenge, Advocates.
Respondents: D.V. Chauhan, Government Pleader and S.S. Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader, M.M. Sudame, Senior Advocate, Saransh Wasnik and Sheikh Majid, Advocates.