Arraying Officer Or Department Without State As Juristic Entity Renders Writ Petition Involving Financial Liability Defective: Supreme Court

The Apex Court was considering the civil appeals directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court allowing a writ petition of the first respondent as well as a subsequent order dismissing a review application of the Joint Director of Higher Education, Nagpur.

The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held, “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 belated impleadment of the “Joint Director” does not cure the fundamental defect of non-joinder of the State of Maharashtra. An officer or a department of the State cannot be equated with the State itself for the purposes of fastening sovereign or financial liability. The High Court thus grossly erred in fastening liability for absorption upon the appellant without its formal impleadment as a necessary party”, it added.

Advocate Aditya Krishna represented the Appellant while Advocate T Srinivasa Murthy represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

One Sudhir was appointed as a Lecturer in the Commerce Faculty of the College (third respondent) which was run by the second respondent Society in the academic session 1990-1991. The College was granted permission to operate strictly on a “no grant-in-aid” basis. Following a series of earlier terminations and reinstatements, Sudhir was placed under suspension, and the Management of the Society initiated a departmental enquiry. Upon completion of the enquiry and after obtaining permission from the University, Sudhir was terminated from service on August 17, 1999. The University also granted permission to the Management to close down the Commerce Faculty from the academic session 1999-2000 for want of students.

Sudhir challenged his termination before the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur, which dismissed his appeal. Aggrieved thereby, Sudhir filed a writ petition before the High Court, and the order of termination came to be quashed. The High Court directed the Joint Director to take steps to include Sudhir’s name in the list of surplus lecturers/teachers and to absorb him in any other college. The High Court directed the Management to pay a sum of Rs 10 lakh to Sudhir towards compensation in lieu of arrears. Aggrieved by the direction regarding absorption, the Joint Director filed a review application, which came to be dismissed.

Reasoning

The Bench highlighted a procedural infirmity that went to the root of the matter: It was the non-impleadment of the State of Maharashtra in the writ proceedings before the High Court.

The Bench noted that the State of Maharashtra was not arrayed as a party respondent in the writ petition instituted by Sudhir. It was only in March 2015—nearly fifteen years after the institution of the writ petition—that Sudhir filed an application seeking impleadment of the Joint Director as the sixth respondent, and not the State. “The High Court proceeded to issue a writ of mandamus directing the inclusion of Sudhir in the list of surplus lecturers/teachers for his absorption—a direction that unequivocally fastens a direct and continuous financial and administrative liability upon the State”, it added.

The Bench also reiterated the settled position of law that the State, as the necessary party, should have been duly impleaded in the proceedings and mere representation through one of its officers could not dispense with such an impleadment.

Reference was made to various judgments including the one in Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab (2014) wherein the Court deprecated the practice of granting relief against the State exchequer when the State itself had not been formally impleaded. It was clarified that a decree erroneously passed in such a suit would not bind the State, even if it had attained finality.

The Bench thus held that the direction contained in paragraph 26 (iv) of the impugned judgment could not be sustained and the High Court erred in fastening liability for absorption upon the appellant without its formal impleadment as a necessary party. The Bench also clarified that Sudhir was appointed in “no grant-in-aid” college, and the same placed him outside the protective umbrella of the State’s surplus absorption policy as clarified in the corrigendum dated March 21, 1997.

Considering that Sudhir attained the age of superannuation on November 30, 2025, during the pendency of these proceedings and because of the order of stay, he could not reap the fruits of the reinstatement order passed by the High Court, the Bench allowed the appeal and directed the appellant-State to pay to Sudhir a consolidated sum of Rs 10 lakh.

Cause Title: State of Maharashtra v. Sudhir S/O Motiramji Hiwarkar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1118)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Aditya Krishna, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocates Shrirang B. Varma, Devashish Bodha

Respondent: Advocate T Srinivasa Murthy, AOR Iyer Shruti Gopal, Advocates Anandh K., Rohit P Masurkar, Aman Prasad, Rahul Chitnis, Hersh Desai, Shwetal Shepal, Aditya Khanna, AOR Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Advocates Prashant R. Dahat, Puneet Yadav, Sourabh Gupta, Priya Mittal

Click here to read/download Judgment