TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted 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 15t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Order (GO (Ms) No. 68/2018/HEDN) dated 7th March, 2019, the appellants were promoted to the cadre of Associate Professor with retrospective effect (Petitioner No.1 - Jiji K.S. w.e.f. 21st June 2012; Petitioner No.2 - Johnson Mathew w.e.f. 1st April, 2011; Petitioner No.3 - Bindumol EK w.e.f. 1st April, 2014). Thus, the contempt petition came to be disposed of noting that the order of this Court had been complied with. The order reads thus: There is no reason to entertain this contempt petition any further since the order dated 28.04.20216 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4502 of 2016, has been admittedly complied with by the alleged contemnor- respondent. Hence, the contempt petition is disposed of. However, any grievance on the merits of the aforesaid order may b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2010) who were promoted on regular basis between 18-2-2003 and 5-3-2010; e. Those promoted on regular basis as Assistant Professor (now Associate Professor) between 18-2-2003 and 5-3-2010 will be entitled to count their service from the date of promotion as Associate Professor for the purpose of determining experience for further promotions notwithstanding the fact that they did not have the qualification of Ph.D on the date of their promotion and notwithstanding the stipulations in Rule 10(ab) of Part-II of the KS&SSR; f. The posts of Principals, Professors and Assistant Professors (now redesignated as Associate Professor), being selection posts in respect of which a select list, has to be prepared in accordance with the provisions of Rule 28(b) of Part-II of the KS&SSR, the stipulation in Rule 28(b)(iA) that the person concerned must be qualified on the date of occurrence of the vacancy is applicable in the matter of promotion to these posts; g. Since regular selections to the posts of Associate Professors (earlier Assistant Professor), Professors and Principals have been held up for quite some time (the notification issued in 2004 for selection to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the judgment of this Court in their favour has been undone by the High Court. 11. Similarly, the petitioner in the connected matter, i.e., SLP (C) 18961 of 2022, approached the High Court by way of a contempt petition (Contempt Case No. 1780 of 2021) alleging that the High Court's above judgment dated 3rd December, 2020 prejudicially affected his date of promotion which was reassigned to his disadvantage. The High Court, by the impugned order dated 24th June 2022, refused to enter into individual factual finding and left it open to be adjudicated before the appropriate forum. For convenience, the order is reproduced as under: 2. Smt. Vaheeda Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would content that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has been prejudicially affected as the date of promotion as professor has been reassigned to his disadvantage. Since we have not considered individual cases while rendering our judgment, it will be inappropriate for us to enter into any factual finding as to whether the petitioner was so disadvantaged, in violation of the judgment of this Court. Taking note of the submission of the learned Government ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the cases. It may help one class of employees and at the same time adversely affect another class of employees. In such circumstances the judgments of the courts or the tribunals may not be strictly judgments in personam affecting only the parties to the cases, they would be judgments in rem. In such a situation, the question arises: What remedy is available to such affected persons who are not parties to a case, yet the decision in such a case adversely affects their rights in the matter of their seniority. In the present case, the view taken by the Tribunal is that the only remedy available to the affected persons is to file a review of the judgment which affects them and not to file a fresh application under Section 19 of the Act. Section 22(3)(f) of the Act empowers the Tribunal to review its decisions. Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") provides that no application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order sought to be reviewed. Ordinarily, right of review is available only to those who are party to a case. However, even if we give w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istrative Tribunal. The High Court referred to the decision in K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India [(1997) 6 SCC 473] to find that the proper procedure to be adopted by persons situated like the assistants in this case and who were not made parties to a prior decision which had effect on their career, was to move an application under Section 19 of the Act. In that decision, this Court noticed that even though the judgment of an Administrative Tribunal may only be a judgment in personam, occasionally, it could also operate as a judgment in rem and those affected by it had the right to approach the Tribunal again with an application under Section 19 of the Act when they are affected as a consequence of the earlier decision and are entitled to seek reconsideration of the view taken in the earlier decision. The High Court, following it, held that the assistants had the locus standi to move the application under Section 19 of the Act before the Tribunal and seek reconsideration of the earlier decision passed by it without notice to them and to show that the said order required reconsideration or that it was not a legal or a proper one. We see no reason not to accept the reasoning adopted by ....