The Supreme Court of India has set aside a landmark order from the Bombay High Court that had directed the State of Maharashtra to absorb a lecturer from an unaided private college into its public employment rolls. In a ruling that reinforces strict adherence to procedural law, the Court held that the High Court erred by issuing a writ of mandamus against the State despite the government not being formally arrayed as a party in the original writ proceedings.

The case centered on the employment of Sudhir s/o Motiramji Hiwarkar, who served as a lecturer in the Commerce Faculty of a college managed by a private society. The institution operated on a “no grant-in-aid” basis, a status that would eventually become the focal point of the legal dispute. After a history of terminations and reinstatements, the society terminated Hiwarkar’s services in 1999 following a departmental inquiry and with the university's approval. While the University and College Tribunal initially upheld the termination, the High Court later overturned that decision, ordering both the reinstatement of the lecturer and his absorption into the State’s surplus teaching pool—a move that would have placed a direct, long-term financial burden upon the public exchequer.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu identified a “fundamental procedural infirmity” that undermined the entire judicial process. The Supreme Court noted that for the fifteen years the writ petition remained pending before the High Court, the State of Maharashtra was never formally named as a respondent. It was only in 2015 that an application was filed to implead the Joint Director of Higher Education, which the apex court held was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 300 of the Constitution.

“The impleadment of an officer or a department, without formally arraying the State as a juristic entity under Article 300 of the Constitution, renders the petition fundamentally defective when substantive relief is sought against the public exchequer,” the Court observed. By relying on established precedents, including the three-judge bench decision in Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway , the Court reiterated that an employee cannot enforce financial or administrative obligations against the government by merely suing a subordinate official or department. The State, as the entity responsible for the exchequer, must be a party to the proceedings to be bound by any such directive.

Legal Limits of Surplus Teacher Absorption Beyond the procedural failure, the Court examined the merits of the lecturer's claim regarding the State’s absorption policy. The Supreme Court clarified that the policy governing the absorption of surplus lecturers was explicitly designed for government-aided colleges. Because the college where Hiwarkar served operated on a “no grant-in-aid” basis, he fell outside the protection afforded by the government’s 1997 corrigendum, which limited the scope of such benefits.

The Court rejected the respondent's argument that he was entitled to the position based on the principles of parity. Hiwarkar had pointed to the case of a similarly situated lecturer who had been absorbed previously. However, the bench dismissed this contention by emphasizing that the law does not permit the perpetuation of administrative errors. Citing the principle that “Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality,” the Court explained that if an illegal or irregular benefit had been granted to another individual in the past, it did not create a binding precedent that would entitle others to the same irregular treatment. Without a formal challenge to the 1997 government resolution that excluded unaided colleges, the lecturer could not successfully bypass executive policy via judicial intervention.

Judicial Intervention and Final Settlement Despite the legal victory for the State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court took a nuanced approach toward the individual petitioner. The Court acknowledged the prolonged uncertainty Hiwarkar faced since his initial termination in 1999. During the course of the protracted litigation, he reached the age of superannuation in late 2025 without ever returning to a permanent academic position. The judges noted that while the appellant's legal arguments regarding the non-applicability of the surplus policy were correct, the human element of the case could not be ignored.

“Leaving Sudhir destitute at this advanced stage of his life would result in a travesty of justice,” the Court remarked. Exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to provide complete justice, the bench decided to mould the relief.

The Court ultimately directed the State of Maharashtra to pay a consolidated sum of ₹10 lakh to the respondent as a full and final settlement of all his claims. This amount is to be paid within eight weeks. This payment stands in addition to the ₹10 lakh compensation the lecturer had already received from the college management during the earlier stages of the dispute. The bench clarified that this order was passed under the unique facts and circumstances of the case and should not be cited as a precedent for similar matters in the future.

With this, the Supreme Court vacated all interim orders and brought a definitive end to a legal battle spanning over two and a half decades. The decision underscores the judiciary's dual commitment to ensuring that administrative entities are not held liable without due process, while also retaining the power to mitigate extreme hardship in long-pending litigation. The administrative obligation of the State to absorb staff from unaided private institutions remains strictly governed by established government policy, and individuals cannot seek to bypass these requirements through the informal impleadment of state departments.