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

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.  

2

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  

3

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.  

4