The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that individuals not party to a judicial proceeding but impacted negatively by its outcome retain viable remedies, including seeking review on limited grounds or filing a fresh challenge before the relevant authority. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Aravind Kumar made these observations while resolving appeals stemming from a protracted dispute over faculty promotions in Kerala’s technical education sector.
The Court underscored that in service-related litigation, decisions can extend beyond the litigants, functioning as judgments “in rem” with ripple effects on non-parties in the same cadre. Drawing from established precedents, it clarified that while review rights are typically confined to parties, aggrieved outsiders may invoke them under restricted conditions akin to Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure—such as errors apparent on record—provided they act within limitation periods.
Justice Datta, delivering the judgment, referenced the landmark ruling in K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India (1997) 6 SCC 473, which recognized that service judgments may bind non-parties indirectly, entitling them to approach tribunals afresh under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to ventilate grievances without reopening the entire case.
The bench further invoked Rama Rao v. M.G. Maheshwara Rao (2007) 14 SCC 54, where the Court permitted non-parties to seek reconsideration of prior decisions affecting their seniority, emphasizing natural justice and the need for an “avenue to ventilate grievances.” It also cited Union of India v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad (2019) 18 SCC 586, affirming that even non-parties qualifying as “persons aggrieved” can pursue review to safeguard their rights.
The core issue traced back to Rule 6A of the Kerala Technical Education Service (Amendment) Rules, 2004, which exempted certain pre-1990 appointees over 45 from PhD requirements for senior roles like Professor or Director, aligning with AICTE notifications from 2000 and 2003 that allowed a seven-year grace period for acquiring the degree.
Challenges to Rule 6A reached the Kerala High Court, where it was struck down, but the Supreme Court overturned this in Christy James Jose v. State of Kerala (2024) 16 SCC 718, holding that non-acquisition of a PhD post-grace period could only halt increments, not void appointments. The present appellants similarly benefited, securing retrospective promotions to Associate Professor via a 2019 Government Order, with their contempt petition closing after compliance confirmation.
Subsequent Original Applications before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal contested other promotion/reversion orders, leading to quashing by the Tribunal on March 5, 2020. The High Court, in its December 3, 2020, order, upheld key aspects: State rules must yield to AICTE regulations; post-March 5, 2010 (AICTE’s 2010 pay/qualification norms), PhD became mandatory for Principal, Professor, and Associate Professor roles; pre-2010 promotions enjoyed relaxations; and delayed selections warranted deeming eligible candidates as regularly promoted from entitlement dates.
Though not parties to these proceedings, the appellants argued the High Court’s directives eroded their Supreme Court-won benefits. The bench agreed, noting the finality of its 2016 order and the appellants’ compliant promotions, allowing their appeal and shielding their career progression from the High Court’s observations.
For the connected SLP (C) No. 18961/2022 and intervention applications—raising similar non-party grievances—the Court granted liberty to pursue remedies before the appropriate forum, disposing of them without further adjudication.
Case Title: Dr. Jiji K.S. & Ors. v. Shibu K & Ors. | Civil Appeal of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8737 of 2021] (with SLP (C) No. 18961/2022)
Click HERE for full judgment
Lawcutor 