Impleading Government Officer Cannot Substitute State When Relief Burdens Exchequer: Supreme Court Quashes Unaided Lecturer’s Absorption, Grants ₹10 Lakh Under Article 142

Case Name: State of Maharashtra v. Sudhir s/o Motiramji Hiwarkar & Others

Date of Judgment: 13 October 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 1118

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the State must be formally impleaded as a necessary party when substantive relief would impose financial and administrative liability upon it. Impleading a government officer or department does not substitute for impleading the State as a juristic entity under Article 300 of the Constitution. Participation by the officer and representation through government counsel did not cure the defect in this case.

The Court also held that a lecturer appointed in a college operating on a “no grant-in-aid” basis fell outside Maharashtra’s surplus-teacher absorption policy, as clarified by the unchallenged corrigendum dated 21 March 1997. An allegedly similar benefit granted to another lecturer could not establish entitlement, since Article 14 does not recognise negative equality.

Summary: The Supreme Court allowed Maharashtra’s appeals against a Bombay High Court direction requiring the absorption of a lecturer from an unaided college into another institution. While setting aside that direction, it exercised Article 142 to award ₹10 lakh to the lecturer in view of his prolonged unemployment and retirement during the litigation.

Sudhir Hiwarkar was appointed as a Commerce lecturer during the academic session 1990–91 in a college permitted to operate strictly without grant-in-aid. Following earlier disputes concerning his employment, the management conducted a departmental inquiry and terminated his services on 17 August 1999 after obtaining university permission. The university also permitted closure of the Commerce Faculty from the academic session 1999–2000 for want of students.

The University and College Tribunal dismissed his challenge to termination. In October 2015, however, the High Court quashed the termination and directed the Joint Director of Higher Education to include him in the surplus-teacher list and secure his absorption in another college. It separately directed the management to pay ₹10 lakh as compensation in lieu of arrears.

The State had not been made a respondent in the writ petition. Only the Joint Director was impleaded in March 2015, nearly fifteen years after its institution. Rejecting the argument that the officer’s participation and the Assistant Government Pleader’s appearance sufficiently represented the State, the Supreme Court held that a direction creating continuing liability against the public exchequer required formal impleadment of the State itself.

Relying on Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway, Jagtu v. Suraj Mal and Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated the distinction between the State and its officers for proceedings seeking enforceable relief against it. It held that the High Court had erred in imposing the absorption obligation without joining the necessary party.

The claim also failed independently on merits. The applicable absorption policy excluded lecturers from colleges operating without grant-in-aid. Hiwarkar had not challenged the 1997 corrigendum clarifying that position, and reliance on Section 79(4) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, did not overcome the unchallenged policy. His plea of parity with another lecturer was likewise insufficient to establish a lawful entitlement.

Nevertheless, the Court considered the exceptional equities. Hiwarkar had remained unemployed since 1999 and attained superannuation on 30 November 2025 while the appeals were pending. The absorption direction had remained stayed, and he had accepted the management’s lump-sum compensation, possibly expecting eventual absorption. The Court also observed that the State bore some responsibility for failing to press its non-joinder objection firmly at the earliest opportunity.

Invoking Article 142 to secure complete justice, the Court granted a further consolidated payment without recognising any entitlement to absorption.

Decision: The appeals were allowed, and paragraph 26(iv) of the High Court’s judgment directing inclusion in the surplus-teacher list and absorption was set aside. The State was directed to pay Hiwarkar ₹10 lakh within eight weeks in full and final settlement of all his claims. The ₹10 lakh compensation already paid by the management remained undisturbed. The Court expressly confined its Article 142 direction to the unique circumstances and stated that it must not be treated as a precedent.