The State must be formally impleaded before relief can impose liability on its exchequer.

Sudhir was appointed as a commerce lecturer in a college operating on a “no grant-in-aid” basis in the 1990–1991 academic session. After a departmental enquiry, he was terminated in 1999; the University had also permitted closure of the Commerce Faculty for want of students.

The University and College Tribunal dismissed his challenge. The High Court quashed the termination, directed the Joint Director to include Sudhir on the surplus-teachers list for absorption, and ordered the Management to pay him ₹10 lakh as compensation in lieu of arrears.

The State had not been impleaded in the writ petition; the Joint Director was added as a respondent nearly fifteen years after the petition was filed.

The State appealed against the absorption direction and the dismissal of its review application.

1. Whether the High Court could direct absorption at the State’s expense when the State itself had not been impleaded as a party

2. Whether a lecturer appointed to a “no grant-in-aid” college was entitled to absorption under the surplus-teacher policy, including on a claim of parity with another lecturer

3. Whether, despite setting aside the absorption direction, the Court should grant relief to Sudhir under Article 142 of the Constitution

A State must be formally impleaded as a necessary party where substantive relief is sought against it or its exchequer; impleading a State officer alone does not make the State a party under Article 300 of the Constitution.

The Court relied on Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway, (1977) 1 SCC 484; Jagtu v. Suraj Mal, (2010) 13 SCC 769, concerning Section 79 and Order XXVII Rule 1 read with Order I Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; and Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab, (2014) 15 SCC 715, which cautions against granting relief against the State exchequer when the State is not formally impleaded.

The Court also applied the 1997 corrigendum to the Government Resolution governing surplus-teacher absorption, which excluded teachers from “no grant-in-aid” colleges; an unchallenged policy could not be bypassed by relying on Section 79(4) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.

Article 14 does not confer “negative equality”: an alleged mistaken or unlawful benefit to another person does not create a right to the same benefit.

Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to mould relief to secure complete justice in the particular circumstances of a case.

The High Court’s absorption direction imposed continuing financial and administrative liability on the State, but the State was never formally impleaded; adding the Joint Director did not cure that defect.

Independently, Sudhir’s appointment to a “no grant-in-aid” college placed him outside the absorption policy as clarified by the unchallenged 1997 corrigendum, and the alleged absorption of another lecturer could not establish a right through Article 14.

Nevertheless, Sudhir had remained out of employment since 1999, had reached superannuation during the proceedings, and had been unable to benefit from the stayed High Court order. Considering those circumstances, the Court invoked Article 142 to provide limited monetary relief.

In exercise of Article 142, the Court directed the State to pay Sudhir ₹10 lakh within eight weeks in full and final settlement of his claims. The ₹10 lakh already paid by the Management was to remain undisturbed; the direction was confined to the case’s unique facts and was not to be treated as a precedent.