Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6744 OF 2010
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.19557/2009]
State of Madhya Pradesh … Appellant
Versus
Pramod Kumar Shukla & Anr. … Respondents
JUDGMENT
AFTAB ALAM,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. One single individual, a compounder in an autonomous government
Ayurved college went to the High Court, complaining about his aborted
transfer to another autonomous Ayurved college. The High Court while
dismissing his writ petition/appeal made certain blanket prohibitory
directions against the State Government. Aggrieved by those directions, the
State Government is in appeal before this Court.
3. One Pramod Kumar Shukla worked as a compounder in an
autonomous government Ayurved college in Ujjain. He made a
representation to the Government for his transfer to the autonomous
Ayurved College, Rewa. His representation was allowed and he was
transferred to the college where he desired to go but two months later his
2
transfer order was cancelled and he was sent back to the Ujjain College for
the reason that employees of autonomous government Ayurved Colleges
were not under government control and the government had no authority or
power to transfer them from one autonomous college to another autonomous
college.
4. The aforesaid Shukla moved the High Court in a writ petition against
the cancellation of his transfer order as a result of which he was sent back to
the Ujjain College. A single judge of the High Court dismissed the writ
petition. He preferred an intra-court appeal. The division bench noticed the
stand of the government that the autonomous colleges/institutions were
governed by specific rules framed/adopted by those colleges/institutions.
Further, at the time of appointment of the employees of the autonomous
colleges/institutions the government had no role to play and the salaries/
wages of the employees of those colleges were not being paid by the
government and the government was not the disciplinary authority of the
employees of the autonomous colleges and hence, the employees of the
autonomous colleges could not be held as employees of the government.
Having noted the stand of the government, the division bench of the High
Court dismissed the appeal filed by the aggrieved employee.
3
5. That should have been the end of the matter. But the High Court went
on to elaborate upon the government stand and in the end made the
following directions in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the judgment which are
reproduced below:
“18. To avoid any future complication, while dismissing the
writ appeal, we hereby direct that the State Government
henceforth shall not transfer any employee of any Autonomous
College/Institution to another Autonomous College/Institution
nor would issue any order of appointment/absorption of some
person from one College into another College or a fresh
appointment because the Autonomous Colleges/Institutions are
governed by the specific rules framed/adopted by such
Colleges/Institutions.
19. On the merits, we dismiss the writ appeal, but however,
with a specific direction to the State Government to adhere to
the observations made by this Court with a further caution that
if they commit any breach of any observation then they would
be exposing themselves to serious risk. We however permit the
appellant to make an application to the College at Rewa for his
fresh appointment. It is, however made clear that this liberty
extended in favour of the appellant would not amount to a
direction of this court to the College. The interim relief granted
on earlier occasion is vacated.”
6. We are unable to appreciate the general and blanket prohibitory
directions issued to the government. The division bench of the High Court
had before it the case of an individual employee and the adjudication should
have concluded with the decision on the merits of his claim. The division
bench evidently forgot that restraint is the hallmark of judicial process and
getting carried away is a luxury that the court can ill afford. In the facts and
4
circumstances of the case we see no occasion or justification for the general
directions as reproduced above.
7. We are, accordingly, constrained to interfere in the matter and set
aside the impugned directions.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs.
………..………................J
(AFTAB ALAM)
………..………….............J
(R.M. LODHA)
New Delhi
August 18, 2010.