The Supreme Court has held that the Kerala High Court could not revisit or dilute relief already granted by the apex court in favour of certain technical education faculty members, restoring their career protections and insulating them from adverse consequences flowing from a later High Court judgment.
Supreme Court Protects Promotions Granted Under Earlier Order
In Dr. Jiji K.S. & Ors. v. Shibu K. & Ors., the Court allowed the appeal of faculty members whose promotions as Associate Professors had earlier been protected by a Supreme Court judgment.
It ruled that
“nothing said in the impugned order of the High Court will affect their career prospects in view of the special facts noticed above.”
Case Details
- Case Title: Dr. Jiji K.S. & Ors. v. Shibu K. & Ors.
- With: Dr. Bindu Kumar K v. Dr. V. Venu IAS
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Aravind Kumar
- Date of Judgment: February 27, 2026
- Citation: 2026 INSC 207
- Arising out of: SLP (C) No. 8737 of 2021 & SLP (C) No. 18961 of 2022
Challenge to Rule 6A and AICTE Qualification Norms
The dispute traces back to Rule 6A of the Kerala Technical Education Service (Amendment) Rules, 2004. The Rule granted exemption from acquiring a Ph.D. degree for certain categories of lecturers appointed prior to March 27, 1990, provided they had completed 45 years of age at the time of notification for higher posts.
The amendment was introduced in compliance with notifications issued by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) in 2000 and 2003 prescribing Ph.D. as a minimum qualification for appointment and promotion to teaching posts, while granting a seven-year relaxation period for acquiring the degree.
Rule 6A was struck down by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court and the decision was upheld by a Division Bench. However, the Supreme Court in Christy James Jose v. State of Kerala set aside the High Court judgment.
The apex court had clarified that non-acquisition of Ph.D. within seven years could at best result in stoppage of increments and
“cannot result in either restraining or doing away with their appointment to the post of Assistant Professor.”
The appellants in the present case had similarly secured relief in Civil Appeal No. 4502 of 2016, where the Supreme Court directed that the benefit of its earlier judgment would equally apply to them.
Subsequently, the State Government issued a Government Order dated March 7, 2019 granting them retrospective promotion as Associate Professors.
A contempt petition filed for non-implementation was disposed of after the Court noted that its order had been complied with.
Kerala Administrative Tribunal and High Court Proceedings
Fresh litigation arose before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), where several Government Orders concerning promotions and reversions were challenged.
Though the Government Order promoting the present appellants was not under challenge, the Tribunal quashed certain promotions and reversions.
The matter reached the Kerala High Court, which on December 3, 2020 delivered a detailed judgment. It held that:
- State service rules are subject to AICTE Regulations.
- After March 5, 2010, Ph.D. became mandatory for the posts of Principal, Professor and Associate Professor.
- Promotions granted between February 18, 2003 and March 5, 2010 could be protected subject to certain conditions.
- The State must determine eligibility under the Career Advancement Scheme strictly as per AICTE Regulations.
The High Court further directed that individuals found entitled to regular promotion prior to March 5, 2010 should be treated as if regularly promoted from the date of entitlement, given delays in conducting selections.
Supreme Court: High Court Could Not Revisit Apex Court’s Relief
The appellants argued that although they were not parties before the High Court, its directions effectively diluted the final relief granted to them by the Supreme Court.
The bench accepted this contention. Justice Dipankar Datta observed that once the Supreme Court had granted specific relief, the High Court could not in essence revisit or disturb that finality.
The Court recorded:
“Limited to the appellants’ claims in the appeal, the appeal ought to be and is hereby allowed with the observation that nothing said in the impugned order of the High Court will affect their career prospects in view of the special facts noticed above.”
The ruling underscores the doctrine of finality of judgments and reinforces that subordinate courts cannot nullify or indirectly undermine relief granted by the Supreme Court.
Remedy for Non-Parties Affected by Judgments
In the connected Special Leave Petition and intervention applications, the Court declined to enter into individual factual disputes. However, it clarified that affected persons who were not parties to earlier proceedings are not remediless.
Relying on K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that in service matters, judgments may operate in rem and affect non-parties. Such aggrieved persons can seek review on limited grounds or approach the appropriate forum under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
The Court quoted extensively from Ajit Babu, emphasizing:
“Public policy demands that there should be an end to law suits… If such a power to review is permitted, no decision is final.”
It also relied on Rama Rao v. M.G. Maheshwara Rao, where the Court permitted affected employees to approach the Tribunal afresh when earlier decisions had prejudicial consequences for them.
Further reference was made to Union of India v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad, where it was held that even a non-party who satisfies the court that he is aggrieved may seek review.
Final Directions of the Supreme Court
The appeal filed by Dr. Jiji K.S. and others was allowed. The Court expressly protected their promotions and career prospects from being adversely affected by the High Court judgment.
The connected Special Leave Petition and intervention applications were disposed of with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
