In a significant ruling for technical education faculty in Kerala, the Supreme Court of India has held that a High Court judgment cannot disturb promotions earlier granted in compliance with its own orders.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Aravind Kumar allowed the appeal filed by Dr. Jiji K.S. and others, making it clear that their career prospects would remain untouched despite a later judgment of the Kerala High Court.
The judgment was delivered on February 27, 2026.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Enhances Accident Compensation to ₹6 Lakh for Court Employee
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to Rule 6A of the Kerala Technical Education Service (Amendment) Rules, 2004. The rule granted certain exemptions from acquiring a Ph.D. degree for promotions in engineering colleges under the state’s technical education department.
The rule had earlier been challenged before the High Court of Kerala, which struck it down. However, in a previous round of litigation, the Supreme Court had restored the position and upheld the appointments and promotions granted under the rule.
Dr. Jiji K.S. and other appellants had successfully approached the apex court earlier. Their promotions were granted retrospectively through a Government Order, and even a contempt petition filed to enforce compliance was disposed of after the State confirmed implementation of the court’s directions.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Orders Cancellation of OBC Certificate of Gram Panchayat Pradhan
However, fresh litigation before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and later the High Court led to a judgment in December 2020 that limited the application of Rule 6A beyond March 5, 2010. Though the appellants were not parties to those proceedings, they feared that the High Court’s directions would adversely affect their promotions and future prospects.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court noted that the appellants’ promotions were granted strictly in compliance with its earlier order dated April 28, 2016. It also recorded that a contempt petition had been closed after noting that the State had complied with its directions.
Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the appellants, argued that the High Court could not, in effect, revisit or dilute the relief granted by the Supreme Court.
Agreeing with this submission, the Bench observed that once this Court had granted relief and the same had attained finality, there was no occasion for the High Court to disturb it.
The court, however, remarked that if the appellants had been impleaded before the High Court and had placed the earlier Supreme Court order on record, the present round of litigation might have been avoided.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Reinstates KSRTC Guard, Says No Termination Without Proper Inquiry and Fair
Relief Limited to Appellants
Allowing the appeal, the Bench made its position clear.
It observed that, limited to the appellants’ claims, “nothing said in the impugned order of the High Court will affect their career prospects in view of the special facts noticed.”
In effect, the High Court’s 2020 judgment will not operate against these particular teachers, whose promotions had already been secured through earlier Supreme Court orders.
Connected Special Leave Petition
In a connected matter, another petitioner had approached the High Court alleging that the 2020 judgment affected his promotion date and seniority. The High Court declined to examine individual facts in contempt proceedings and left him to seek remedy before the appropriate forum.
The Supreme Court did not grant direct relief in that petition. Instead, it referred to earlier precedents such as K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India and Rama Rao v. M.G. Maheshwara Rao, observing that persons affected by judgments in proceedings to which they were not parties are not without remedy.
The Bench held that such individuals are free to pursue appropriate legal remedies before the competent forum, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the connected special leave petition and all pending applications were disposed of, granting liberty to seek remedies elsewhere.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Partly Allows Discharge Plea in 498A Case, Drops Attempt to Homicide Charge
Decision
The appeal filed by Dr. Jiji K.S. and others was allowed. The Supreme Court clarified that the Kerala High Court’s 2020 judgment would not impact their promotions or career progression.
The connected special leave petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the relevant forum.
Case Title: Dr. Jiji K.S. & Ors. v. Shibu K & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 8737 of 2021
Decision Date: February 27, 2026
