The Supreme Court has asserted that its judgment that has attained finality cannot be revisited or disturbed by a lower court, such as a High Court. The Court held that benefits granted to parties under its final order are protected, and a subsequent order by a lower court in a different proceeding cannot be used to undermine or nullify those benefits, particularly when the beneficiaries were not parties to the subsequent proceeding.
The Apex Court also clarified that a person who was not a party to a legal proceeding but is adversely affected by its outcome has the locus standi to seek a remedy. Such an aggrieved person may file an application to review the judgment or, in service matters, may file a fresh application before the relevant Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to challenge the adverse consequences and seek a reconsideration of the earlier decision.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Aravind Kumar observed that the appellants had been promoted in direct compliance with its earlier order dated April 28, 2016, and that a contempt petition had been disposed of on the grounds of this compliance. The Bench concurred with the appellants’ counsel that the High Court could not have revisited the Supreme Court’s order concerning the appellants, as the matter had attained finality.
The Bench noted that had the appellants been impleaded as parties before the High Court and had its earlier order been brought to the High Court’s attention, the present appeal might have been unnecessary.
With respect to the connected special leave petition and other intervenors, the Bench observed that individuals who are aggrieved by a judgment in a proceeding to which they were not parties are not without a legal remedy. These remedies include the right to seek a review of the judgment, even as a non-party, or to approach the appropriate tribunal afresh under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to have their grievances adjudicated.
Briefly, the dispute originated with the introduction of Rule 6A of the Kerala Technical Education Service (Amendment) Rules, 2004, which provided certain exemptions from the requirement of a Ph.D. degree for promotions in technical education services. This rule was enacted to comply with notifications from the All-India Council of Technical Education (AICTE). Rule 6A was challenged before the High Court of Kerala, where a Single Judge struck it down, and this decision was upheld by a Division Bench.
In a previous round of litigation, this Court, in Christy James Jose v. State of Kerala [(2024) 16 SCC 718], set aside the High Court’s judgment. It held that non-acquisition of a Ph.D. within the prescribed seven-year period would, at most, result in the stoppage of increments and could not invalidate an appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. The appellants in the present case had also approached this Court and were granted the same relief in their appeal (Civil Appeal No. 4502 of 2016).
Subsequently, the appellants filed a contempt petition for the implementation of the judgment. During its pendency, the Government of Kerala issued an order promoting the appellants to the cadre of Associate Professor with retrospective effect. Consequently, this Court disposed of the contempt petition, noting that its order had been complied with.
Later, several Original Applications were filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) challenging various Government Orders concerning promotions and reversions. The specific Government Order that promoted the appellants was not under challenge. The KAT allowed these applications, and its decision was challenged before the High Court, which held, among other things, that a Ph.D. qualification is mandatory for promotions to the posts of Principals, Professors, and Associate Professors after March 5, 2010.
Appearances:
Senior Advocates V. Chitambaresh, Jaideep Gupta, and Jayanth Muth Raj, AORs Karthik S.d. and Mohammed Sadique T.a., along with Advocates C. Govind Venugopal, Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, Alim Anvar, Santhosh K, Riddhi Bose, Rachita Chawla, Rishi Agarwal, Devika A.L., and Sampriti Baksi, for the Appellant
Senior Advocates V. Chitambaresh and Naveen R Nath, AOR Karthik S.d., C. K. Sasi, A. Lakshminarayanan, Harish Pandey, A. Lakshminarayanan, and Smita Amratlal Vora, along with Advocates Dr. Kk Geetha, Meena K Poulose, Aditya Nath, and Disha Gupta, for the Respondent
