Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Tribunal Order; Holds Lecturer Had No Right to Continue Without a Sanctioned Post in Aided College

Case Name: Adarsh Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Bhiwani vs. State of Haryana & Others
Date of Judgment: 02 December 2025
Citation: CWP-6349-2020
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the Educational Tribunal’s direction reinstating a Sanskrit Lecturer, holding that no sanctioned post existed in the aided college against which she could legally be retained. The Court ruled that earlier continuation under interim orders did not confer any right, and that the Tribunal had erred in treating disputed and unproven assertions as established facts.

Summary: The dispute arose from the selection process initiated in 2008 for one sanctioned post of Lecturer in Sanskrit in Adarsh Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Bhiwani. After re-assessment ordered by the High Court in prior litigation, Suman was placed first in merit and appointed in 2012. The fourth respondent, Sushma, who was second in merit, continued only because of interim orders passed in her separate writ petition and was permitted to work temporarily against what she claimed was a second vacant post.

The college later relieved her in October 2015 after the Government confirmed that only one sanctioned post existed and that the second earlier post had been converted into Lecturer in English in 2008 due to insufficient workload. The fourth respondent challenged the relieving order before the Tribunal, which reinstated her on the assumption that multiple sanctioned posts existed and had been admitted earlier.

The High Court found that the Tribunal had completely ignored the record showing that only one post of Lecturer in Sanskrit had Government sanction, that Suman rightfully occupied it, and that the fourth respondent had been drawing salary only from college funds due to lack of an approved post. The Court held that continuation under interim orders did not create any substantive right, nor could the Tribunal rely on unproved assertions when both the college and the State had categorically denied the existence of any second sanctioned post. Once it was shown that no sanctioned post existed, the college’s decision to relieve her could not be faulted.

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The Tribunal’s judgment dated 20 January 2020 was set aside, and the fourth respondent’s appeal before the Tribunal was dismissed. No relief could be granted in the absence of a sanctioned post.