### High Court Cannot Revisit or Undone Benefits Granted by Supreme Court Orders to Non-Parties

The appellants were Engineering College Lecturers appointed before March 27, 1990.

Under Rule 6A of the Kerala Technical Education Service Rules, they were granted exemptions/relaxations from possessing a Ph.D. for promotion to Assistant Professor (now Associate Professor).

While the High Court of Kerala initially struck down Rule 6A, the Supreme Court in Christy James Jose v. State of Kerala (2016) set aside that judgment, validating the rule.

Consequently, the appellants were promoted with retrospective effect via a Government Order (GO) in 2019, and a subsequent contempt petition was closed by the Supreme Court noting compliance.

However, in a separate proceeding (O.A. 500/2019) to which the appellants were not parties, the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) quashed various promotions.

On appeal, the High Court issued directions in the impugned order dated December 3, 2020, declaring Ph.D. mandatory after March 5, 2010, which potentially jeopardized the appellants’ settled promotions.

1. Whether the High Court could issue directions that effectively revisited or disturbed the finality of a prior Supreme Court order passed in favor of the appellants.

2. What legal remedy is available to third parties (intervenors) whose service conditions are adversely affected by a judgment/rem in proceedings where they were not impleaded.

The Court applied the principle of finality of litigation, observing that a High Court cannot revisit a Supreme Court order qua specific parties.

On the rights of non-parties, the Court relied on K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India, which establishes that persons aggrieved by a judgment in rem to which they were not parties may seek a review under Order 47 CPC.

It further cited Rama Rao v. M.G. Maheshwara Rao, affirming that such "strangers" to a litigation may also file a fresh application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Union of India v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad, which permits non-parties to seek review if they qualify as "persons aggrieved".

The Court noted that the appellants’ promotions were direct results of the Supreme Court’s 2016 mandate and subsequent contempt proceedings.

It reasoned that since the Supreme Court had already attained finality regarding the appellants' eligibility and promotion, the High Court lacked the jurisdiction to "undo" those benefits through subsequent general directions in a different litigation.

Regarding the intervenors and the petitioner in the connected SLP (who alleged their seniority was reassigned to their disadvantage), the Court found that because the High Court had specifically declined to enter into individual factual findings, it was unnecessary for the Supreme Court to adjudicate their merits directly.

Instead, the Court applied the "Ajit Babu" doctrine, holding that the proper course for such affected third parties is to approach the appropriate forum (Tribunal or High Court) to seek review or fresh adjudication.

Regarding the connected SLP (Dr. Bindu Kumar K) and various interim applications, the Court disposed of them with liberty to the parties to pursue appropriate remedies (review or fresh application) before the competent forum in light of the settled legal position for non-parties.