1. Employees in technical education contested state promotion policies and service conditions following conflicting judicial pronouncements and subsequent government orders regarding mandatory qualification requirements for promotional posts. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 8 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 222
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Dr. Jiji K.S. and Others – Appellants
Versus
Shibu K. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3078 of 2026 [Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 8737 of 2021]
With
Dr. Bindu Kumar K. – Appellant
Versus
Dr. V. Venu IAS – Respondent
SLP (Civil) No. 18961 of 2022
Decided On : 27-02-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Karthik S.d., AOR Mr. C. Govind Venugopal, Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv. Mr. Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Mr. Riddhi Bose, Adv. Ms. Rachita Chawla, Adv. Ms. Rishi Agarwal, Adv. Mrs. Devika A.l., Adv. Ms. Sampriti Baksi, Adv. Mr. Mohammed Sadique T.a., AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Karthik S.d., AOR Mr. C. Govind Venugopal, Adv. Mr. Naveen R Nath, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Dr. Kk Geetha, Adv. Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv. Mr. Aditya Nath, Adv. Ms. Disha Gupta, Adv. Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, AOR Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, AOR Ms. Smita Amratlal Vora, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Karthik S.d., AOR Mr. C. Govind Venugopal, Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv. Mr. Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Mr. Riddhi Bose, Adv. Ms. Rachita Chawla, Adv. Ms. Rishi Agarwal, Adv. Mrs. Devika A.l., Adv. Ms. Sampriti Baksi, Adv. Mr. Mohammed Sadique T.a., AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Karthik S.d., AOR Mr. C. Govind Venugopal, Adv. Mr. Naveen R Nath, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Dr. Kk Geetha, Adv. Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv. Mr. Aditya Nath, Adv. Ms. Disha Gupta, Adv. Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, AOR Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, AOR Ms. Smita Amratlal Vora, AOR
The Supreme Court affirmed AICTE regulations take precedence over state rules regarding qualifications for promotions in higher education and clarified the review rights for non-parties adversely affected by prior judgments.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Technical Education Service (Amendment) Rules, 2004 - Rule 6A - Exemption from qualification for lecturers - High Court struck down the rule but was later overturned by the Supreme Court, confirming that non-acquisition of Ph.D. cannot rescind appointments to Assistant Professor posts. (Paras 5 and 17)
(B) Promotions and Qualifications - The court clarified that regulations by the AICTE regarding qualifications take precedence over state rules where contradictory. The need for a Ph.D. for certain posts was established post-2010 for future promotions. (Paras 9 and 10)
(C) Non-parties to proceedings - Individuals not party to a case may have grounds to seek review of judgments affecting their career advancement, reiterating that judgments can operate as judgments in rem. (Paras 17 and 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged the High Court's ruling that invalidated certain promotional rules for lecturers, justifying their promotions under historical AICTE regulations. They were promoted amidst complex legislative frameworks regarding educational qualifications.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court's order cannot affect the career prospects of the appellants and emphasized primacy of AICTE regulations.
Issues: The case addressed whether the High Court could overturn promotions granted under earlier Supreme Court orders and the applicability of qualifications post-2010.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the AICTE qualifications supersede state regulations and recognized the need for a legal remedy for non-parties affected by court decisions.
Result: Appeals allowed, affirming the positions of the appellants.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
-
constitutional law
- repugnancy between state and central legislation (Para 9)
Table of Contents
2. Parties disputed the applicability of state service rules versus central regulatory qualifications, and the impact of prior supreme court judgments on individual promotional seniority and career progression. (Para 10 , 11 , 14 )
3. The High Court erred by revisiting settled issues concerning individual appellants who already secured finality via prior Supreme Court orders; non-parties possess alternate legal remedies to challenge adverse judgments. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. Judicial finality regarding specific parties cannot be disturbed in collateral proceedings; third parties aggrieved by judgments rendered in their absence must seek appropriate remedies through established legal channels. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
5. Appeals are allowed protecting appellants' career prospects, while other aggrieved parties are granted liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies before the relevant forum. (Para 15 , 20 )
6. Can a High Court revisit and disturb a final judgment previously passed by the Supreme Court in respect of the same parties?
No. Once a matter attains finality through a Supreme Court order, the High Court cannot reopen, reconsider, or effectively undo that judgment in subsequent proceedings concerning the same parties. (Para 14 , 15 )
7. What is the appropriate legal recourse for an individual whose rights are adversely affected by a judgment to which they were not a party?
An aggrieved non-party is not bound by the doctrine of res judicata in the same manner and may seek redress by filing an application for review or initiating fresh proceedings before the appropriate tribunal or court to ventilate their grievances. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 8737 of 2021.
2. The dispute before us has had a litigious history and hence, a reference to the previous round of litigation would be necessary to understand the factual background.
3. Rule 6A of the Kerala Technical Education Service (Amendment) Rules, 2004 was introduced by way of an amendment on 18th September, 2004. Rule 6A reads as follows:
6A. Exemption from qualification:
(i) Candidates appointed as Lecturer in Engineering Colleges in the Technical Education Department on or before the 27th March 1990, who have completed 45 years of age on the date of notification published for filling up the posts of Professor, Joint Director (Engineering College Stream) and Director of Technical Education as the case may be are exempted from acquiring Ph.D. Degree for eligibility for the above posts.
(ii) Candidates applying for the post of Assistant Professor are exempt from possessing Ph.D. Degree but they have to acquire Ph.D. Degree within seven years of the appointment to the post of Assistant Professor as stipulated by the All India Council for Technical Education.
4. The amendment was in compliance with a notification dated 15th March, 2000 of the All India Council of Technical Education1 [AICTE] which prescribed minimum qualifications (being a Ph. D degree with a first-class degree at the Masters or Bachelor level) as the qualification for appointment as Assistant Professor (re-designated as Associate Professor w.e.f. 1st January, 2006). By another notification dated 18th February, 2003, the AICTE permitted promotion to the post of Associate Professor before acquiring Ph. D. qualification while granting a seven-year relaxation for acquiring the same.
5. Rule 6A came to be challenged before the High Court of Kerala.2 [High Court] A Single Judge struck down the rule. The decision came to be upheld by the Division Bench. The judgment of the Division Bench was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4604 of 2016 ( Christy James Jose v. State of Kerala , (2024) 16 SCC 718). This Court, vide judgment and order dated 26th April 2016, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court by observing as follows:
16. Therefore, in effect as on date the non-acquisition of PhD can at best result in stoppage of increment after the prescribed period of 7 years and the resultant position would be that the same cannot result in either restraining or doing away with their appointment to the post of Assistant Professor for failure to acquire the said qualification even within the stipulated period of 7 years.
17. Having regard to the fact situation narrated above, while setting aside the impugned judgment [ Anandavally M.K. v. P.G. Jairaj , 2013 SCC Online Ker 23641] of the Division Bench of the High Court as well as that of the learned Single Judge, we hold that the appointments of the appellants are not in any way contrary to the prescription of the required qualification by AICTE and the qualification prescribed under Special Rule 6-A(2) is also in tune with the qualification prescribed by AICTE in its Notification dated 18-2-2003.
6. Appellants had also approached this Court following the similar route. They too were granted relief as above on their appeal [Jiji K.S. v. L.B.S. Center for Science & Technology, Civil Appeal No. 4502 of 2016 and Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7556 of 2014] in the following terms:
1. Leave granted. The application for impleadment is allowed. The civil appeal is disposed of in terms of the order dated 26-4-2016 passed in Christy James Jose v. State of Kerala [Christy James Jose v. State of Kerala]. The said order shall hold good for this appeal as well.
7. A contempt petition [Contempt Petition (C) No. 1815 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 1502 of 2016] before this Court had been filed by the appellants seeking implementation of the above judgment in their favour. In the meanwhile, by a Government Order6 [GO (Ms) No. 68/2018/HEDN] dated
