Non-Parties Aggrieved By Judgment Can Seek Review Or Challenge It: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that persons who were not parties to a case but are adversely affected by the judgment are not without remedy and can seek review or challenge the decision before the appropriate forum.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Aravind Kumar made the observation while deciding appeals arising from a dispute over promotions in the Kerala Technical Education Service.

The Court emphasised that in service matters, judicial decisions may sometimes affect employees who were not parties to the proceedings. In such situations, those affected persons may seek review of the judgment or approach the appropriate forum to challenge it.

Referring to the decision in K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India (1997) 6 SCC 473, the Court noted that although review is ordinarily available only to parties to the case, persons who are aggrieved by a decision affecting their rights may still seek review on limited grounds.

The Court observed that in service jurisprudence, certain decisions may operate not merely between the parties but may have broader implications affecting others in the same cadre or service.

The bench further relied on Rama Rao v. M.G. Maheshwara Rao (2007) 14 SCC 54, where the Supreme Court had held that persons affected by a judgment passed without hearing them can approach the Administrative Tribunal afresh to ventilate their grievances.

It also referred to Union of India v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad (2019) 18 SCC 586, which recognised that even a non-party to proceedings may seek review of an order if they can demonstrate that they are a “person aggrieved”.

Background

The dispute relates to Rule 6A of the Kerala Technical Education Service (Amendment) Rules, 2004, which granted exemption from acquiring a PhD for certain teachers appointed as lecturers before March 27, 1990, who had crossed the age of 45 at the time of notification for higher posts.

The rule was introduced in line with notifications issued by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), which prescribed a PhD as a qualification for appointment or promotion to higher academic posts but allowed a seven-year relaxation to acquire the qualification.

The rule was challenged before the Kerala High Court, where a Single Judge struck it down and the Division Bench affirmed the decision. However, the Supreme Court later set aside those judgments in Christy James Jose v. State of Kerala, holding that failure to obtain a PhD within the stipulated period could at best lead to stoppage of increments but could not invalidate appointments or promotions.

Following that ruling, the present appellants also secured similar relief from the Supreme Court. The State Government subsequently promoted them as Associate Professors with retrospective effect, and a contempt petition filed for implementation of the judgment was disposed of after noting compliance.

Later, several petitions were filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal challenging government orders relating to promotions and reversions in technical education institutions. The Tribunal quashed certain promotions, and the matter eventually reached the Kerala High Court.

In its judgment dated December 3, 2020, the High Court held, among other things, that:

• State service rules must conform to AICTE regulations.
• After March 5, 2010, a PhD became mandatory for promotion to posts such as Principal, Professor and Associate Professor.
• Promotions prior to that date could be considered differently based on earlier regulatory relaxations.

Although the appellants were not parties to those proceedings, they contended that the High Court's directions effectively undermined the benefits granted to them by the Supreme Court.

Accepting this contention, the Supreme Court observed that once it had granted relief to the appellants earlier, the High Court could not revisit the issue in a manner that disturbed the finality of that decision.

The Court noted that the appellants had already been promoted in compliance with its earlier order and the contempt petition filed by them had been closed after recording compliance.

Noting that their promotions had already been granted in compliance with the Court's earlier judgment, the bench allowed their appeal and clarified that nothing in the High Court's judgment would affect their career prospects.

At the same time, the Court clarified that other affected persons, including those who were not parties to the earlier proceedings, are free to pursue remedies in accordance with law.

Case : Dr Jiji KS v Shibu K

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Click here to read the judgment