Quick answer: When a writ petition seeks relief that would impose a continuing financial or administrative obligation on a State, the State itself must be made a party. In State of Maharashtra v. Sudhir s/o Motiramji Hiwarkar, the Supreme Court held that adding the Joint Director of Higher Education and having a government lawyer appear did not cure the State’s absence. It set aside the direction to absorb the lecturer but awarded him separate relief under Article 142.
The Supreme Court delivered the judgment on 13 October 2026 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2963–2964 of 2016 (2026 INSC 1118). Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu addressed both the necessary-party defect and whether an unaided college lecturer fell within Maharashtra’s surplus absorption policy.
How did the dispute arise?
Sudhir Hiwarkar was appointed a commerce lecturer in a college permitted to operate on a no grant-in-aid basis. The management terminated his service in August 1999 after a departmental enquiry. Around the same time, the university allowed the commerce faculty to close for want of students.
The University and College Tribunal dismissed his challenge. In October 2015, the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench quashed the termination and the Tribunal’s order. It directed the Joint Director of Higher Education to include Sudhir in the surplus lecturers’ list for absorption in another college. It also directed the college management to pay him ₹10 lakh in compensation in lieu of arrears.
The State appealed against the absorption direction. The Supreme Court had stayed that direction when granting leave in March 2016.
Why was the State a necessary party?
The writ petition did not name the State of Maharashtra as a respondent. Almost 15 years after it was filed, the Joint Director was added, but the State itself was still not impleaded. Absorbing Sudhir elsewhere would have placed ongoing administrative and financial responsibility on the State.
The Court rejected the argument that the officer’s presence and an Assistant Government Pleader’s participation sufficiently represented the State. For substantive relief against public funds, the State must be formally arrayed as a party. The judgment referred to Article 300 of the Constitution and applied the necessary-party principle discussed in Ranjeet Mal, Jagtu and Chaman Lal.
| In the writ petition | Supreme Court’s conclusion |
|---|---|
| Joint Director added as a respondent | An officer is not the State itself for this purpose. |
| Government pleader argued the case | Participation did not cure formal non-joinder. |
| Absorption sought through the surplus list | The direction would burden the State and could not stand without it as a party. |
Key distinction: The judgment concerns relief that fastens substantive liability on the State. It should be read in that context, rather than as a statement that every writ involving a public officer fails without the State.
Was the lecturer eligible under the surplus absorption policy?
The Court also rejected the absorption claim on its merits. The college had operated without grant-in-aid. A 21 March 1997 corrigendum to the State policy clarified that surplus absorption applied to grant-in-aid colleges, and Sudhir had not challenged that corrigendum. His reliance on Section 79(4) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 therefore did not help in this case.
Sudhir sought parity with another lecturer said to have been absorbed. The Court held that Article 14 does not support “negative equality”: an illegal or irregular benefit given to someone else does not create a right to repeat it. That finding depended on the policy position and facts before the Court.
What relief did the Supreme Court finally grant?
The Court set aside paragraph 26(iv) of the High Court judgment, the direction concerning inclusion in the surplus list and absorption. It did not disturb the ₹10 lakh already paid by the college management.
Sudhir had remained out of employment since 1999 and reached superannuation on 30 November 2025 while the appeals were pending. Considering those circumstances, the Court invoked Article 142 to direct the State to pay him a further, consolidated ₹10 lakh within eight weeks, in full and final settlement of his claims. The judgment expressly says this case-specific direction is not to be treated as a precedent. The appeals were allowed on those terms, with no order as to costs.
Key takeaways
- Name the State when the writ relief sought would impose substantive financial or administrative liability on it.
- Joining an officer or relying on a government lawyer’s appearance did not cure non-joinder here.
- The unaided college lecturer was outside the applicable surplus absorption policy on these facts.
- Article 142 relief resolved this employee’s unusual situation; the Court said it is not a precedent.
Frequently asked questions
Is a government officer enough as a respondent in a writ against the State?
In this case, no. The relief would bind the State financially and administratively, so the State itself was a necessary party.
Did the Supreme Court reinstate Sudhir in another college?
No. It set aside the High Court’s direction for surplus-list inclusion and absorption.
Was the management’s ₹10 lakh payment reversed?
No. The Court left that payment undisturbed and separately ordered the State to pay ₹10 lakh under Article 142.
Can another unaided college lecturer claim the same Article 142 payment?
This ruling does not establish such an entitlement. The Court described its direction as specific to Sudhir’s circumstances and expressly declined to make it a precedent.
Does Article 14 require repeating an irregular benefit given to another employee?
No. The Court rejected that argument as a claim to negative equality.
Read the judgment: State of Maharashtra v. Sudhir s/o Motiramji Hiwarkar & Others, Supreme Court of India, 13 October 2026.
