Binding rehabilitation orders upheld; management could not ignore them, though back wages were limited to the post-judgment period.

Government orders issued to rehabilitate displaced teachers were held binding on the management, not merely permissive, because they implemented a policy scheme that removed vacancy constraints through supernumerary posts and continuity of service. The orders were also upheld as intra vires, as the statutory framework and executive power supported remedial directions in the special circumstances. A subordinate management could not disregard or collaterally attack the orders on a self-assessed view of invalidity; the proper course was a direct challenge. On relief, full back wages for the entire interregnum were declined, but back wages were allowed from the writ judgment date until deemed retirement, with liberty to recover the amount from the management.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Government orders directing reappointment of the displaced teacher were merely permissive or were binding on the management; (ii) Whether the impugned Government orders were ultra vires the powers of the Government authorities; (iii) Whether the management could ignore the Government orders on the assumption that they were void; (iv) Whether such orders could be attacked collaterally in resistance to enforcement; (v) Whether the teacher was entitled to pay and service benefits for the interregnum period.

Issue (i): Whether the Government orders directing reappointment of the displaced teacher were merely permissive or were binding on the management.

Analysis: The orders were issued as a policy measure to rehabilitate displaced teachers whose appointments in the Sanskrit University had been quashed. The language of the first order showed that the benefit was conferred on the displaced teachers, while the management's role was only to implement rejoining if vacancies existed. The later orders creating supernumerary posts and treating the intervening period as duty removed the vacancy difficulty and continued the same policy. The scheme therefore operated as a direction to the management rather than a mere option.

Conclusion: The orders were binding and not merely permissive.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned Government orders were ultra vires the powers of the Government authorities.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act permitted Government control over sanctioned posts and obligated the manager to abide by Government or University directions. The Court read Sections 56(7), 59, 62(2)(b), 76, 100 and 101 as recognising sufficient administrative and incidental power to issue remedial directions in the peculiar factual setting. The policy to create supernumerary posts and absorb displaced teachers did not conflict with the Act or with the constitutional executive power under Article 162. The contention that the Government lacked authority because regular appointments are ordinarily by direct recruitment was rejected as too rigid in the face of the statutory exception and the special circumstances.

Conclusion: The Government orders were not ultra vires.

Issue (iii): Whether the management could ignore the Government orders on the assumption that they were void.

Analysis: The Court held that an administrative order is ordinarily presumed valid and operative unless set aside in appropriate proceedings. A subordinate authority cannot sit in judgment over the legality of a superior Government directive and refuse compliance merely on a self-assessed view of invalidity. The doctrine that void orders may be disregarded was confined to situations of true nullity and did not justify administrative disobedience by the very entity bound to implement the directive. The management's refusal to obey the orders without first challenging them was therefore untenable.

Conclusion: The management could not ignore the Government orders on that premise.

Issue (iv): Whether such orders could be attacked collaterally in resistance to enforcement.

Analysis: The Court distinguished the authorities relied on for collateral challenge and held that collateral attack is not an open-ended defence available to a public body that is required to implement a Government order. While a void act may sometimes be questioned collaterally, the present orders were not shown to be void in the relevant legal sense, and in any case the management, being an instrumentality under State control, could not justify disobedience by treating the orders as a nullity on its own. The proper course was a direct challenge, not collateral resistance in implementation proceedings.

Conclusion: Collateral attack was not available to the management in the circumstances.

Issue (v): Whether the teacher was entitled to pay and service benefits for the interregnum period.

Analysis: The Court held that the management's resistance had kept the teacher out of service, but the Government was the paymaster and had not been at fault. Full back wages for the entire interregnum would unjustly burden the Government. At the same time, once the teacher's entitlement received judicial recognition, equity justified monetary relief for the period during which the claim stood validated by the judgment. The Court therefore tailored relief by directing payment of accumulated back wages only from the date of the writ judgment till the date of deemed retirement, with liberty to recover the amount from the management.

Conclusion: The teacher was not entitled to full back wages for the entire interregnum, but was entitled to back wages from the date of the writ judgment until deemed retirement.

Final Conclusion: The management's challenge to the reappointment direction failed, while the employee's grievance succeeded only in part on the monetary relief, resulting in reaffirmation of reappointment with limited back-wage relief.

---