M.S. Jawalkar, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Above all the petitions are filed by the petitioners for seeking direction to the respondents to release their salary, which was stopped since March, 2025 without any notice or without there being any fault on their part. At the time of issuance of notice in petitions, as there was no show cause notice and salary was stopped since March, 2025, considering this aspect and also considering the fact that the respondents are exacting the duties from the petitioners as a teacher, the schools are being run, even election duties, census duties are directed to be carried out by these employee-teachers, by way of interim relief, the respondents were directed to release their salary. In some of the petitions, the respondents-Authorities issued impugned communications, thereby cancelled the approvals granted to the petitioners-employees. The said impugned communications are challenged by the petitioners in some of the petitions. The appointment orders and approvals granted to the petitionersemployees are annexed with the petitions.

4. It appears that there was no reply filed till February, 2026, except in one of the matters. However, it appears that the Hon’ble Apex Court recorded that since pleadings have been completed, this Court was requested to decide Writ Petition No.5647 of 2025 along with all other similarly placed writ petitions, which are stated to be 86 in numbers finally one way or the other within a period of four weeks. It appears that factually incorrect statement was made that pleadings have been completed. In fact in Writ Petition No.5647 of 2025, respondent No.1 filed its reply on 11/02/2026 and respondent No.2 filed its reply on 23/03/2026 after disposing of the Special Leave Petition. As such, in that petition also pleadings were not complete. In fact, in most of the matters pleadings were not complete and after passing of order by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the respondents itself filed their reply. Prior to that, there was no reply nor any application for modification of order or challenge to the interim order. In spite of the order of Hon’ble Apex Court, the time was granted to the respondents to complete their pleadings and matters are taken up in group for decision.

5. It is common contention of the petitioners that the action of the respondents-Authorities in withholding salary is arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable. It is also a common submission of the petitioners that without issuing any show cause notice and without initiating any departmental enquiry, the respondents-Authorities abruptly cancelled the approval orders and Shalarth IDs of the petitioners-employees. It amounts to punish the petitioners for no fault on their part. Being arbitrary, the impugned action is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further contention that petitionersemployees are duly qualified and appointed after following the due procedure of law and only after they met the eligibility criteria, they were granted approval orders by the respondent-Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and Shalarth IDs were given to them, after due verification of their information. The petitioners had no role to play in issuance of Shalarth IDs and they are discharging their duties continuously. Thus, the action of denying salary to the petitioners is arbitrary and amounts to colourable exercise of power. The petitioners have no role insofar as allotment of Shalarth ID, except of supplying of information to the respondents, who are then responsible for verification of the information and allotment of Shalarth ID. Therefore, the respondents’ actions of stoppage of salary to the petitioners-employees for their own shortcomings and cancellation of approval orders abruptly are completely unwarranted and bad-in-law.

6. Since the issue involved in these petitions is identical to the issue involved in the recent judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.7441 of 2025 (Shrikant Ganpatrao Pawar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others) along with connected matters, decided on 21/04/2025, these petitions are fully covered by the said judgment. Gist of the facts of each petition is as under:

                   6.1. In Writ Petition No.6163/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 4 are employees of the Respondent No. 6 School, wherein Petitioner No. 1 to 4 are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 were appointed in the Respondent No. 6 School on the post of Assistant Teachers between the years 2012 and 2015, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.2. In Writ Petition No.6148/2025, the Petitioner is an employee of the Respondent No.6 School, wherein Petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher. The Petitioner was appointed in the Respondent No. 6 School on the post of Assistant Teacher in the year 2015, and his appointment was duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioner that he has duly submitted his draft proposal for the approval of Shalarth ID consequent to which he was granted his Shalarth ID number by the Respondent Authorities.

                   6.3. In Writ Petition No. 6172/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 22 are employees of Petitioner Nos. 23 and 24 Schools, wherein Petitioner No. 2 is working as Junior Clerk, Petitioner No. 6, 14 and 21 are working as Shikshan Sevak, Petitioner No. 15 is working as Peon and the rest of the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 22 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 23 and 24 School on their respective posts between the years 2011 and 2017, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.4. In Writ Petition No. 6359/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 5 are employees of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 Schools, wherein Petitioner No. 1 and 2 are working as Shikshan Sevak in Respondent No. 5 school and Petitioner No. 3 and 4 are working as Shikshan Sevak in Respondent No. 6 and Petitioner No. 5 was absorbed by Respondent No. 5 School. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 were appointed in the Respondent No. 5 and 6 School on their respective posts between the years 2011 and 2016, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.5. In Writ Petition No. 6365/2025, the Petitioner No.1 is an employee of the Petitioner No. 2 School, wherein Petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher. The Petitioner No. 1 was initially appointed in the Petitioner No. 2 School on the post of Shikshan Sevak in the year 2012, and his appointment was duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioner that he has duly submitted his draft proposal for the approval of Shalarth ID consequent to which he was granted his Shalarth ID number by the Respondent Authorities.

                   6.6. In Writ Petition No. 6161/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 3 are employees of Respondent No. 6 School, wherein Petitioner No. 1 and 3 are working as Assistant Teacher. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were initially appointed in the Respondent No. 6 School on the post of Shikshan Sevak between the years 2011 and 2012, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.7. In Writ Petition No.6387/2025, the Petitioner is an employee of the Respondent No.5 School, wherein Petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher. The Petitioner was initially appointed in the Respondent No. 5 School on the post of Shikshan Sevak in the year 2013, and his appointment was duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioner that he has duly submitted his draft proposal for the approval of Shalarth ID consequent to which he was granted his Shalarth ID number by the Respondent Authorities.

                   6.8. In Writ Petition No. 6158/2025, the Petitioner No.1 to 3 are employees of the Respondent No. 6 School, wherein Petitioners are working as Assistant Teacher. The Petitioner No. 1 to 3 were initially appointed in the Respondent No. 6 School on the post of Shikshan Sevak in the year 2011, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth ID consequent to which they were granted their Shalarth ID numbers by the Respondent Authorities.

                   6.9. In Writ Petition No. 6166/2025, the Petitioner No.1 to 4 are employees of the Respondent No. 6 School, wherein Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner No. 1 to 4 were initially appointed in the Respondent No. 6 School on the post of Shikshan Sevak between the years 2012 and 2013, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth ID consequent to which they were granted their Shalarth ID numbers by the Respondent Authorities.

                   6.10. In Writ Petition No. 6164/2025, the Petitioner No.1 to 5 are employees of the Respondent No.6 School, wherein Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner No. 1 to 5 were initially appointed in the Respondent No.6 School on the post of Shikshan Sevak between the years 2011 and 2012, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth ID consequent to which they were granted their Shalarth ID numbers by the Respondent Authorities.

                   6.11. In Writ Petition No.6159/2025, the Petitioner No.1 to 4 are employees of the Petitioner No. 5 School, wherein Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner No. 1 to 4 were initially appointed in the Petitioner No. 5 School on the post of Shikshan Sevak in the year 2012, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth ID consequent to which they were granted their Shalarth ID numbers by the Respondent Authorities.

                   6.12. In Writ Petition No.6157/2025, the Petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk in Gayatri Higher Primary School, Gayatri Nagar, Nagpur in the year 2010, and his appointment was duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioner that he has duly submitted his draft proposal for the approval of Shalarth ID consequent to which he was granted his Shalarth ID number by the Respondent Authorities.

                   6.13. In Writ Petition No. 6165/2025, the Petitioner No.1 to 4 are employees of the Respondent No. 6 School, wherein Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner No. 1 to 4 were initially appointed in the Respondent No. 6 School on the post of Shikshan Sevak between the years 2011 to 2013, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth ID consequent to which they were granted their Shalarth ID numbers by the Respondent Authorities.

                   6.14. In Writ Petition No. 6162/2025, the Petitioner No.1 is working as Assistant Teacher in Petitioner No. 3 School and Petitioner No. 2 is working as Assistant Teacher in Petitioner No.4 School, whereas Petitioner No. 5 is the Management. Both Petitioner No. 1 and 2 were appointed as Assistant Teachers in the year 2013, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth ID consequent to which they were granted their Shalarth ID numbers by the Respondent Authorities.

                   6.15. In Writ Petition No. 6168/2025, the Petitioner No.1 to 6 are employees of the Respondent No. 6 School, wherein Petitioner No. 5 is working as Junior Clerk, Petitioner No. 6 is working as peon and rest of the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner No. 1 to 6 were initially appointed in the Respondent No. 6 School on the post of Shikshan Sevak between the years 2011 and 2012, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth ID consequent to which they were granted their Shalarth ID numbers by the Respondent Authorities.

                   6.16. In Writ Petition No. 6363/2025, the Petitioner No.1 to 4 are employees of the Respondent No. 5 School, wherein Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner No. 1 to 4 were initially appointed in the Respondent No. 5 School on the post of Shikshan Sevak between the years 2012 to 2015, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth ID consequent to which they were granted their Shalarth ID numbers by the Respondent Authorities.

                   6.17. In Writ Petition No. 6169/2025, the Petitioner No.1 and 2 are employees of the Respondent No.6 School, wherein Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner No.1 and 2 were initially appointed in the Respondent No.6 School on the post of Shikshan Sevak in the year 2013, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth ID consequent to which they were granted their Shalarth ID numbers by the Respondent Authorities.

                   6.18. In Writ Petition No.6364/2025, the Petitioner No.1 is an Assistant Teacher working in the Petitioner No.2 School, whose services were approved on 01/01/2015. It is submitted by the Petitioner that his appointment was duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioner that he has duly submitted his draft proposal for the approval of Shalarth ID consequent to which he was granted his Shalarth ID number by the Respondent Authorities.

                   6.19. In Writ Petition No.6388/2025, the Petitioner No.1 and 2 are employees of the Respondent No. 5 School, wherein Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers and Petitioner No. 1 was transferred from Respondent No. 5 School to Respondent No. 6 School. The Petitioner No. 1 and 2 were initially appointed in the Respondent No. 5 School on the post of Shikshan Sevak in the year 2013, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth ID consequent to which they were granted their Shalarth ID numbers by the Respondent Authorities.

                   6.20. In Writ Petition No. 6386/2025, the Petitioner No.1 and 2 are employees of the Petitioner No. 3 School, wherein Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner No. 1 and 2 were initially appointed in the Petitioner No. 3 School on the post of Shikshan Sevak in the year 2014, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth ID consequent to which they were granted their Shalarth ID numbers by the Respondent Authorities.

                   6.21. In Writ Petition No.6370/2025, the Petitioner No.1 to 4 are employees of the Petitioner No.5 School, wherein Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner No.1 and 2 were initially appointed in the Petitioner No. 3 School on the post of Shikshan Sevak between the years 2011 and 2014, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth ID consequent to which they were granted their Shalarth ID numbers by the Respondent Authorities.

                   6.22. In Writ Petition No.4963/2025, the Petitioner No. 3 to 12 are employees of the Petitioner No. 2 School and Petitioner No. 1 is the Management. The Petitioner Nos. 3 to 12 were appointed in the Petitioner No.2 School on their respective posts between the years 2012 and 2013, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012. In this petition the petitioners also challenged the communication dated 18/03/2025 issued by the respondent No.6- Superintendent of Pay and Provident Fund Unit (Primary), ZP Nagpur. By the impugned communication dated 18/03/2025, the respondent No.6 informed the petitioner No.2-School that in view of the letter dated 11/03/2025, along with list of employees issued by the respondent No.5-Education Officer (Primary), ZP Nagpur, till the scrutiny of personal approval and Shalarth IDs of the employees, whose names are mentioned in the list and till the specific direction of releasing of salary, the salary of the employees should not be released. By this communication, it was also informed that the salary bills of the other employees except the employees whose names are mentioned in the list shall be submitted.

                   In our considered opinion the direction of respondent No.5- Education Officer (Primary), ZP Nagpur without any order of stoppage of salary as well as consequential communication by the respondent No.6-Superintendent of Pay and Provident Fund Unit (Primary), ZP Nagpur both are unsustainable.

                   6.23. In Writ Petition No. 6789/2025, the Petitioner No. 3 and 4 are employees of the Petitioner No. 2 School and Petitioner no.1 is the Management, wherein Petitioner No. 4 is working on the post of Peon and Petitioner No.3 is working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 2 School on their respective posts between years 2012 and 2013, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.24. In Writ Petition No. 6019/2025, the Petitioner No. 3 to 21 are employees of the Petitioner No.2 School and Petitioner No. 1 is the Management, wherein Petitioner No. 19 is working on the post of Junior Clerk and the rest of the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 3 to 21 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 2 School on their respective posts between years 2012 and 2014, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.25. In Writ Petition No. 6018/2025, the Petitioner No. 3 to 21 are employees of the Petitioner No. 2 School and Petitioner No. 1 is the Management, wherein Petitioner No. 20 is working on the post of Junior Clerk, Petitioner No. 21 is working on the post of Peon and the rest of the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 3 to 21 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 2 School on their respective posts between years 2011 and 2014, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.26. In Writ Petition No.6022/2025, the Petitioner No. 3 to 12 are employees of the Petitioner No. 2 School and Petitioner No. 1 is the Management, wherein Petitioner No. 11 is working on the post of Junior Clerk, Petitioner No. 12 is working on the post of Peon and the rest of the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 3 to 12 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 2 School on their respective posts between years 2012 and 2014, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.27. In Writ Petition No. 6021/2025, the Petitioner No. 3 to 9 are employees of the Petitioner No. 2 School and Petitioner No. 1 is the Management, wherein the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 3 to 9 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 2 School on their respective posts between years 2012 and 2019, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.28. In Writ Petition No. 6937/2025, the Petitioner No. 3 to 5 are employees of the Petitioner No. 2 School and Petitioner No. 1 is the Management, wherein the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 2 School on their respective posts between years 2011 and 2014, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.29. In Writ Petition No. 8085/2025, the Petitioner No. 3 and 4 are employees of the Petitioner No. 2 School and Petitioner No. 1 is the Management, wherein the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 2 School on their respective posts between years 2013 and 2016, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.30. In Writ Petition No. 6023/2025, the Petitioner No. 3 to 19 are employees of the Petitioner No. 2 School and Petitioner No. 1 is the Management, wherein the Petitioner No. 18 is working on the post of Junior Clerk, Petitioner No. 19 is working on the post of Peon and the rest of the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 3 to 19 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 2 School on their respective posts between years 2011 and 2015, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.31. In Writ Petition No. 6020/2025, the Petitioner No. 3 to 8 are employees of the Petitioner No. 2 School and Petitioner No. 1 is the Management, wherein the Petitioner No. 7 is working on the post of Junior Clerk, Petitioner No. 8 is working on the post of Peon and the rest of the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 3 to 8 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 2 School on their respective posts between years 2009 and 2013, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.32. In Writ Petition No.6017/2025, the Petitioner No. 3 to 14 are employees of the Petitioner No.2 School and Petitioner No.1 is the Management, wherein the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 3 to 14 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 2 School on their respective posts between years 2010 and 2014, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.33. In Writ Petition No.6016/2025, the Petitioner No. 3 to 9 are employees of the Petitioner No. 2 School and Petitioner No. 1 is the Management, wherein the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 3 to 9 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 2 School on their respective posts between years 2011 and 2014, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.34. In Writ Petition No.8110/2025, the Petitioner No. 4 was initially appointed in Petitioner No.2 School and was later transferred to the Petitioner No. 3 School, whereas the Petitioner No. 1 is the Management. The Petitioner No.4 was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Petitioner No. 2 School in the year 2012 and his appointment was duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioner that he has duly submitted his draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth ID and he was issued his Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.35. In Writ Petition No. 8113/2025, the Petitioner No. 3 to 7 are employees of the Petitioner No. 2 School and Petitioner No. 1 is the Management, wherein the Petitioner No. 6 is working on the post of Junior Clerk, Petitioner No. 7 is working on the post of Peon and the rest of the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 3 to 7 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 2 School on their respective posts between years 2015 and 2016, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.36. In Writ Petition No.6814/2025, the Petitioner No. 3 is employee of the Petitioner No. 2 School and Petitioner No. 1 is the Management, wherein the Petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher. The Petitioner No. 3 was appointed in the Petitioner No. 2 School on the post of Assistant Teacher in the year 2014, and his appointment was duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioner that he has duly submitted his draft proposal for the approval of Shalarth ID and he was issued his Shalarth ID number consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.37. In Writ Petition No. 7064/2025, the Petitioner No. 3 and 4 are employees of the Petitioner No. 2 School and Petitioner No. 1 is the Management, wherein the Petitioner No. 3 is working on the post of Junior Clerk, Petitioner No. 4 is working on the post of Assistant Teacher. The Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 2 School on their respective posts between years 2013 and 2016, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.38. In Writ Petition No. 7336/2025, the Petitioner No. 3 and 4 are employees of the Petitioner No. 2 School and Petitioner No. 1 is the Management, wherein the Petitioners are working on the post of Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 2 School on the post of Assistant Teacher between years 2016 and 2018, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.39. In Writ Petition No. 4605/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 3 are employees of the Petitioner No. 5 School and Petitioner No. 4 is the Management, wherein Petitioner No. 3 is working on the post of Peon, Petitioner No. 2 is working as Junior Clerk and Petitioner No.1 is working as Assistant Teacher. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 5 School on their respective posts between the years 2016 and 2017, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.40. In Writ Petition No.8130/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 and 2 are employees of the Petitioner No. 4 School and Petitioner no.3 is the Management, wherein Petitioner No. 1 and 2 are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 4 School on the post of Assistant Teacher in the year 2009, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012. In this matter also the communication by the respondent-Superintendent of Pay and Provident Fund Unit (Primary), ZP Nagpur, which is scribed on the salary bill dated 03/05/2025 and joint letter dated 29/04/2025 are challenged being bad and illegal. Similarly, the petitioners also challenged the unnumbered and undated letters of respondent No.1 issued to the petitioners collectively which the Department claimed as show cause notices. As held in the recent judgment of this Court delivered in Writ Petition No.7441 of 2025 and connected matters (supra) that the said purported show cause notices are unsustainable and consequential action based on that purported show cause notices is also unsustainable.

                   6.41. In Writ Petition No.6438/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 15 are employees of the Respondent No. 4 to 13 School. The Petitioner No. 1 and 2 are Assistant Teachers working in Respondent No. 4 School. The Petitioner No. 3 to 5 are Assistant Teachers working in Respondent No.5 School. The Petitioner No.1 and 2 are Assistant Teachers working in Respondent No. 4 School. The Petitioner No. 6 is Assistant Teacher and Petitioner No. 7 is Junior Clerk working in Respondent No. 4 School. The Petitioner No. 8 and 9 are Assistant Teachers working in Respondent No. 7 School. The Petitioner No. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are Assistant Teachers working in Respondent No. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 Schools respectively. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 15 were appointed in the Respondent Nos. 4 to13 Schools on their respective posts between years 2011 and 2019, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   Thus, it can be seen that in all writ petitions, the petitioners-employees are working for 10 to 15 years, their services were duly approved and even Shalarth IDs were issued. The learned counsel for the petitioners for example drew our attention to the approval order granted by the Education Officer dated 26/11/2021, O.W.No.16/9334/2021. It is a common order of approval. However, while cancellation of approval in respect of Shri Nikhil Digambar Dholekar, who is one of the employees in that common approval order, it is recorded by the respondent-Authority that on perusal of outward register of the Education Officer (Primary), ZP Nagpur for date 28/03/2019, there are O.W.No.2093 to 2205 and in that entry there is no order of approval. Therefore, it was concluded that the order is illegal. However, on perusal of Page-115 of the petition, it would reveal that the said order is not of 28/03/2019 as observed by authority, but it is 26/11/2021 and O.W. No.16/9334/2021. Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the enquiry is only a farce and no proper consideration of the documents. Moreover, no copy of outward register was provided, nor concerned Education Officer was present in enquiry. In most of the matters, all the parties were shown as absent, though they were present. There was no notice to the Education Officer (Primary), ZP Nagpur, who has issued the said approval orders after due verification of documents.

                   6.42. In Writ Petition No.8095/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 5 are employees of the Respondent No. 4 School and Respondent No. 5 is the Management, wherein Petitioner No. 1 to 5 are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 were appointed in the Respondent No. 4 School on the post of Assistant Teacher in the year 2013, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.43. In Writ Petition No. 6060/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 and 2 are employees of the Petitioner No. 4 School and Petitioner No. 3 is the Management, wherein Petitioner No. 1 and 2 are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed in the Petitioner No.4 School on the post of Assistant Teacher between the years 2016 and 2017, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.44. In Writ Petition No. 6434/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 16 are employees of the Petitioner No. 18 and 19 School and Petitioner No.17 is the Management, wherein Petitioner No. 1 is the Headmaster, Petitioner No. 2 to 6 are Assistant Teachers, Petitioner No. 7 is Junior Clerk and Petitioner No. 8 and 9 are Peon working in Petitioner No.18 School; whereas Petitioner No. 10 is the Headmaster, Petitioner Nos.11 to 15 are Assistant Teachers and Petitioner No.16 is the Junior Clerk working in the Petitioner No. 19 School. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 16 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 18 and 19 School on their respective posts between years 2009 and 2013, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.45. In Writ Petition No.5680/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 56 are employees of the Petitioner No. 57 and 61 School and Petitioner No. 62 is the Management, wherein Petitioner No. 1 to 4 are Assistant Teachers, Petitioner No. 6 is Junior Clerk and Petitioner No. 5 is Peon working in Petitioner No.57 School. The Petitioner No. 7 to 14 are Assistant Teachers, Petitioner No. 16 is Peon and Petitioner No. 15 is the Junior Clerk working in the Petitioner No. 58 School. The Petitioner No. 17 to 25 are working as Assistant Teachers in the Petitioner No. 59 School. The Petitioner No. 26 to 38 are working as Assistant Teachers and the Petitioner No. 39 is working as Peon in the Petitioner No.60 School. And lastly, the Petitioner No. 40 to 54 are working as Assistant Teachers, Petitioner No. 55 is the Clerk and Petitioner No. 56 is the Peon working in the Petitioner No. 61 School. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 56 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 57 to 61 Schools on their respective posts between years 2010 and 2020, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.46. In Writ Petition No.6430/2025, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Respondent No. 4 School in the year 2003, and his appointment was duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioner that he has duly submitted his draft proposal for the approval of Shalarth IDs and he was issued his Shalarth ID number consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.47. In Writ Petition No. 6433/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 and 2 are employees of the Petitioner No. 3 School and Petitioner No. 4 is the Management, wherein the Petitioner No. 1 is working as Assistant Teacher and Petitioner No. 2 is working as Peon. The Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 3 School on their respective posts between years 2012 and 2014, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.48. In Writ Petition No. 6436/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 7 are employees of the Petitioner No. 8 School and Petitioner No. 9 is the Management, wherein the Petitioner No. 6 is working on the post of Junior Clerk, Petitioner No. 7 is working on the post of Peon and the rest of the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 8 School on their respective posts between years 2010 and 2016, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.49. In Writ Petition No.5531/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Petitioner No. 3 School in the year 2012 and the Petitioner No. 2 is the Management. It is submitted by the Petitioner that his appointment was duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is further submitted by the Petitioner that he has duly submitted his draft proposal for the approval of Shalarth ID and he was issued his Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.50. In Writ Petition No.6106/2025, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Respondent No. 4 School in the year 2016 and the Petitioner No. 5 is the Management. It is submitted by the Petitioner that his appointment was duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is further submitted by the Petitioner that he has duly submitted his draft proposal for the approval of Shalarth ID and he was issued his Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.51. In Writ Petition No.5647/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 3 are employees of the Petitioner No. 5 School and Petitioner No. 4 is the Management, wherein the Petitioner No. 1 and 2 is working on the post of Assistant Teacher and Petitioner No. 3 is working as Shikshan Sevak. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 5 School on their respective posts between years 2012 and 2014, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and they were issued their respective Shalarth ID numbers consequent to the scheme framed by the State Government on 07/11/2012.

                   6.52. Apart from the judgments referred in Writ Petition No.7441 of 2025 and connected matters, (supra), learned counsel Mr.S.S.Joshi for the petitioners relied on the following citations:

                   (i) Pran Gopal Roy v. Lakshmi Banerjee, 1995 SCC OnLine Cal 408.

                   (ii) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. H.L.Trehan and others, (1989) 1 SCC 764.

                   (iii) Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia, (1988) 4 SCC 284.

                   (iv) Ajay Kumar Alias Bittu and another v. State of Uttarakhan and another, (2021) 4 SCC 301.

                   (v) Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, (1978) 1 SCC 405.

                   (vi) K.I.Shephard and others v. Union of India and others, (1987) 4 SCC 431.

                   (vii) Man Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 726.

                   (viii) Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo and others, (2014) 1 SCC 161.

                   6.53. The learned counsel for all the petitioners submitted that they adopt the submissions of the petitioners made in the recent judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.7441 of 2025 and connected matters, (supra) decided on 21/04/2025. It is further submitted that in their petitions even Shalarth IDs are also issued.

7. The learned GP for the respondents-State Authorities adopted their submissions made in the recent judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.7441 of 2025 and connected matters (supra).

8. Learned Senior Advocate Shri M.M.Sudame also adopted the submissions made in the judgment of this court in Writ Petition No.7441 of 2025 and connected matters (supra).

9. Learned counsel Mr.Joshi for the petitioners relied on the judgment in Pran Gopal Roy v. Lakshmi Banerjee, 1995 SCC OnLine Cal 408, wherein Calcutta High Court held that salary is “property” under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, and therefore it cannot be withheld arbitrarily. If the employer (State/school authorities) believes that teachers were not performing their duties, the proper course is to initiate disciplinary proceedings and establish misconduct. Simply withholding salary without any inquiry or finding is illegal and unreasonable, as it deprives a person of property without authority of law. The learned counsel relied on para-7, which is reproduced as under:

                   “7. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are approved teachers, their salaries could not have been directed to be withheld by the Sub-Inspector of Schools only on assigning cogent reasons. Salary is a property within the meaning of Art. 300-A of the Constitution of India. Salary of an employee, therefore, cannot be withheld except for cogent reasons. If the petitioners or any other teacher had not been taking classes or had not been attending school, appropriate departmental proceedings could have been initiated against them, but without arriving at a finding in that regard, and without initiating any such proceedings no order, and that too, an unreasoned order could have been passed by the Sub-Inspector of Schools directing holding up of salaries of the petitioners. The said order, therefore, in my opinion, cannot be sustained in law.”

                   9.1. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment in H.L.Trehan v. Union of India (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex court held in para-12 as under:

                   “12. It is, however, contended on behalf of CORIL that after the impugned circular was issued, an opportunity of hearing was given to the employees with regard to the alterations made in the conditions of their service by the impugned circular. In our opinion, the post-decisional opportunity of hearing does not subserve the rules of natural justice. The authority who embarks upon a postdecisional hearing will naturally proceed with a closed mind and there is hardly any chance of getting a proper consideration of the representation at such a postdecisional opportunity. ………………………..” (Emphasis supplied)

                   9.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment in Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia (supra). This judgment is not applicable in the present set of facts.

                   9.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment in Ajay Kumar @ Bittu v. State of Uttarakhand, (supra), in support of his contention that once the purported show cause notice is declared as unsustainable, the subsequent orders in no manner can be a ground to not consider the correctness and validity. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in para-10 as under:

                   “10. The proceedings which were taken on 5-9-2019 and 18-9-2019 are proceedings consequent to and subsequent to the order dated 17-8-2019. The subsequent proceeding in no manner can be a ground to not consider the correctness and validity of the order dated 17-8-2019. We are of the considered opinion that the High Court completely erred in refusing to consider the correctness of the order dated 17-8-2019 on the ground that on 18-9- 2019 notice under Section 446 CrPC has been issued. As and when it is found that the order dated 17-8-2019 could not have been passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 CrPC, all subsequent proceedings thereto shall automatically come to an end.” (Emphasis supplied)

                   9.4. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405, in support of his contention that what is not mentioned in the communication that cannot be added by way of reply. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed in para-8 as under:

                   “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji:

                   Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what be intended to do: Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to to the language used in the order itself.

                   Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.”

                   9.5. In support of contention that where a State Agencies act administratively, rules of natural justice would apply, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in K.I. Shephard and others v. Union of India and others, (1987) 4 SCC 431, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held in para-12 as under:

                   “12. ……………..… On the basis of these authorities it must be held that even when a State agency acts administratively, rules of natural justice would apply. As stated, natural justice generally requires that persons liable to be directly affected by proposed administrative acts, decisions or pro-ceedings be given adequate notice of what is proposed so that they may be in a position (a) to make representations on their own behalf; (b) or to appear at a hearing or enquiry (if one is held) and (c) effectively to prepare their own case and to answer the case (if any) they have to meet.”

                   9.6. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment in Man Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, through Secretary and others (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held in para-5 as under:

                   “5. We find that the High Court has failed to consider the fact that even if the appointment was irregular, the appellant had discharged the duties and in lieu of duties, he had to be paid. The State cannot take any work from any employee without payment of any salary.”

                   It is contended that State is supposed to be a Model Employer.

                   9.7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the judgment in Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo and others, (2014) 1 SCC 161, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held in para-51 that –

                   “51. …………………. Even in a writ of quo warranto while declaring that a person is not eligible to hold the post had rendered service, we are disposed to think, there cannot be recovery of amount. While exercising the power for issue of writ of quo warranto the Court only makes a public declaration that the person holding the public office is a usurper and not eligible to hold the post and after the declaration is made he ceases to hold the office. Till the declaration is made, the incumbent renders service and when he has rendered service he cannot be deprived of his salary. Denial of pay for the service rendered tantamounts to forced labour which is impermissible. When an appointment is admitted and the incumbent functions in the post and neither suspended nor removed from service, he is entitled to get salary, for it is his legal right and it is the duty of the employer to pay it as per the terms and conditions of the appointment. The matter may be different when someone continues after retirement by a false declaration or misrepresentation. Recovery of salary would amount to deprivation of payment while the incumbent was holding the post and had worked. Asking someone to work and when his appointment is nullified by issue of a writ of quo warranto by the Court, we think that neither the employer can recover the amount nor the Court can direct for recovery of the same. There has to be some other reason for denial of payment, recovery of salary or honorarium. …………….” (Emphasis supplied)

                   9.8. The above contentions raised by learned counsel Shri S.S. Joshi in addition to the contentions raised by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.7441 of 2025 and connected matters (supra).

10. In addition to the submissions adopted, the learned GP also relied on the judgment in State of Bihar and others v. Devendra Sharma, (2020) 15 SCC 466, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that invalid appointment/ wrong appointment/illegal appointment, recruitment to Class-III and Class-IV posts in Health Department in State of Bihar, the recruitment on the basis of forged appointment letters or forged nursing registration certificate and appointment made by the Authority not competent to do so held that such appointments are void ab initio vitiating recruitment process. The said citation is of no help to the learned GP, as in the present matter, there is no conclusion or any allegation of fraud or forged appointment orders against the petitioners.

                   10.1. In fact, we are of the considered opinion that no proper opportunity of hearing was granted, nor purported show cause notices are specific so as to petitioners can reply to the said purported show cause notices. There is no assertion in the said show cause notices that the fraud is committed by the said individual at the time of appointment, approval and receipt of salary or Shalarth ID.

                   10.2. The learned GP placed reliance on paras-36 and 41 of the said judgment, which are reproduced as under:

                   “36. We do not find any merit in the said argument. A Full Bench of the High Court in Rita Mishra v. Director, Primary Education while dealing with appointment in the Education Department claiming salary despite the fact that letter of appointment was forged, fraudulent or illegal, declined such claim. It was held that the right to salary stricto sensu springs from a legal right to validly hold the post for which salary is claimed. It is a right consequential to a valid appointment to such post. Therefore, where the very root is non-existent, there cannot subsist a branch thereof in the shape of a claim to salary. The rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. Therefore, these rights, including the right to salary, spring from a valid and legal appointment to the post. Once it is found that the very appointment is illegal and is non est in the eye of the law, no statutory entitlement for salary or consequential rights of pension and other monetary benefits can arise.”

                   “41. This Court in Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh was examining a case, where the appointment letter came to be issued without approval of the competent authority, then whether such appointment letter issued to the respondent, would be a case of nullity or a mere irregularity? If it is a case of nullity, affording opportunity to the incumbent would be a mere formality and non-grant of opportunity may not vitiate the final decision of termination of his services. This Court held that in absence of prior approval of the competent authority, the Director In-charge could not have hastened issuance of the appointment letter. The act of commission and omission of the Director In-charge would, therefore, suffer from the vice of lack of authority and nullity in law.”

                   In both the matters referred in these paras are not applicable in the present set of facts, as there is no concluding findings that letter of appointment, approval order, Shalarth ID are forged, fraudulent or illegal. It is a matter of record that there are appointment orders and there are approval orders issued by the respondents-Department. It is the duty of the Education Officer to verify the documents submitted for approval. Thereafter, it is also the duty of the Education Officer to submit the said proposal for issuance of Shalarth ID to the Deputy Director of Education. Erring officers are liable to make a loss good. So far as the judgment in Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh, it is not applicable in the present set of facts. In the present matters, as observed in the judgment of Principal Seat in Writ Petition 3839 of 2025 (Hemant Baliram Deore and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others) with connected petitions, decided on 27/03/2026, that near about 150 teachers along with their Management and Headmasters were called on one day and they were directed to fill up the information on 22 points in one form. They were directed to submit the documents and without granting any opportunity of hearing, the respondents-Authorities cancelled the approvals of the petitioners-employees.

                   10.3. In fact, after putting service for more than 10 to 15 years in such hasty manner, the enquiry is concluded without granting proper opportunity is itself violation of principles of natural justice. It is a matter of record that the schools were being inspected every year and none of the Authorities raised any objection about the approvals or any other irregularity or illegality since 10 to 15 years of petitioners- employees’ appointments. Even if it is presumed that there is any irregularity and if timely action would have been taken, the petitioners-employees would have opportunity to opt for any other job. However, after 10 to 15 years of service, after granting due approval, after payment of salary years together, their approvals were cancelled without granting proper opportunity of hearing rendering them without income. Many of them might have crossed age to secure any alternative job.

                   10.4. As referred above, the Principal Seat in Hemant Baliram Deore and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others (supra) held that the show cause notice does not even whisper of any specific charge or irregularity, much less point out any particular illegality or fraud/misrepresentation alleged to have been committed while granting approval to the petitioners-employees. At the foundation itself, that is, show cause notice is vague, not specific, lack details and/or unintelligible that is sufficient to hold that the noticee was not given proper opportunity of hearing to meet the allegations indicated in the show cause notice. The Principal Seat also observed that the undue haste and no proper opportunity was granted to the petitioners. It is also rightly observed that the incumbent Education Officer as well as the then Education Officer, who are alleged to have resorted to illegalities and irregularities were absent. In the present matters also, the same procedure/modus operandi adopted by the Enquiry Officer. As seen from the GR dated 10/06/2022, in Clause 3.1, it is specifically directed to the Deputy Director of Education that if it revealed that the earlier approval was granted irregularly or illegally and it is prima facie opinion of the Deputy Director of Education, in that circumstances, it is necessary to pass interim orders along with reasons for coming to the prima facie opinion and informing to the concerned that detail enquiry would be conducted. Until completion of detail enquiry, the proposal for inclusion of new name would remain in abeyance. 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. Moreover, no personal hearing was granted to any of the petitioners as observed by the Principal Seat, as they were directed to fill up the form on 22 points and no personal hearing was granted. Even in some matters though petitioners were present, they were shown as absent.

                   10.5. 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. Relying on the decision in Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra and others, (Writ Petition No.10133 of 2016, decided on 01/08/2017), this Court held that approvals granted cannot be interfered with and cannot be set aside, save and except for the reason that a fraud has been committed. Even if the Education Officer granted approval erroneously, the same cannot be made ground to recall the approval order and pass a cancellation order, unless a case of fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression is established. The facts involved in the present matters are identical, even show cause notices, the hearing granted also revealed that the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer on the basis of show cause notice, which is not specific and which is vague, is unsustainable and therefore, the subsequent actions based on the above referred purported show cause notices are also unsustainable. We fully agreed with the judgment passed in Hemant Baliram Deore (supra). 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.

                   10.6. The learned GP submitted that in addition to the above submissions, he adopted the submissions made in Writ Petition No.7441 of 2025 and connected matters (supra).

11. The facts and circumstances of the present matters are identical to the facts and circumstances in the recent judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.7441 of 2025 and connected matters (supra). Hence, all the issues are covered by the judgment in Writ Petition No.7441 of 2025 and connected matters (supra). Therefore, for the reasons mentioned in the recent judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.7441 of 2025 and connected matters (supra), we pass the following order.

12. The present writ petitions are partly allowed.

13. The impugned purported show cause notices and the impugned communications/cancellation orders pursuant to the purported show cause notices are hereby quashed and set aside as are unsustainable. The impugned communications/orders dated 18/03/2025, 02/05/2025, 02-03/05/2025 29/04/2025, issued by the respondents-Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and Superintendent, Pay and Provident Fund Unit (Primary) to the petitioners are also quashed and set aside.

14. If the Authorities desire to conduct a proper hearing in these matters, they are at liberty to issue appropriate show cause notices afresh, mentioning the specific ground in each case of the petitioners-employees or Management, as being grounds only towards indicating fraud or misrepresentation. Any issue touching an irregularity can also be confronted, but only with the Management and if it is noticed that the Management as well as the concerned officer has committed irregularities or not followed the procedure prescribed by the GR dated 10/06/2022, the respondents-Authorities are at liberty to make loss good from the concerned officer or by imposing penalty on the Management. However, unless a fraud or misrepresentation is noticed and the petitioners-employees are held to be parties to such acts, the Shalarth IDs, approval orders of the petitioners-employees shall not be questioned as held in view of law laid down in Mrs.Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) and the same are restored.

15. The petitioners-employees are entitled to their salary, which is stopped since March, 2025 and thereafter, as they have been working without a break in service and respondents-Authorities to continue to pay the same.

16. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms. No costs.

At this juncture, the learned Additional Government Pleader has requested for keeping this judgment in abeyance for four weeks. However, for the reasons mentioned in the judgment, we are not inclined to keep this judgment in abeyance, as the petitionersemployees are without salary from March, 2025 specifically when they are having approval and Shalarth ID also.