M.P. Vs. Pramod Kumar Shukla & ANR.  INSC 646 (18 August 2010)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
noted the stand of the government, the division bench of the High Court
dismissed the appeal filed by the aggrieved employee.
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
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
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."
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.
We are, accordingly, constrained to interfere in the matter and
set aside the impugned directions.
In the result, the appeal is allowed but with no order as to
....................................J (AFTAB ALAM)
....................................J (R.M. LODHA)
August 18, 2010.