ORDER : B M SHYAM PRASAD, J. The petitioners' Review Applications in Nos. 94 -108/2025 under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal'] are rejected by the order dated 16.09.2025. The Tribunal's reasoning for rejection reads as under: "We have perused the records. It reveals that Review applicants were not a party to the Original applications. When they were not party to the original applications and when there was no any relief sought against them, question of reviewing the earlier order of this Tribunal does not arise". Mr. M. S. Bhagwat, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. V. Shivareddy, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the first to third respondents, are heard for disposal of the petition dispensing with notice to the private respondents as the Tribunal's impugned order is even without notice to the respondents. 2. Mr. M. S. Bhagwat submits that the Tribunal could not have rejected the review applications when it has observed that the applicants were not parties to the proceedings in Application Nos. 5238 - 5277/2024 without examining whether the petitioners could be aggrieved by such order and are therefore entitled to maintain an application for review. 2.1 Mr. M. S. Bhagwat emphasizes, relying upon Regulation 3(b) of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (Review Applications) Regulations, 1994 [for short, 'the 1994 Regulations'], that the petitioners, because they can successfully demonstrate that they are justified in being aggrieved by the Tribunal's order dated 08.07.2025, can successfully maintain the application for review, especially when an application is filed as contemplated under the 1994 Regulation for review. 3. Undoubtedly, the petitioners have filed an application with the Tribunal in I.A.No.1/2025 for leave to file review application contending that the directions by the Tribunal in the Application Nos.5238-5277/2024 to revert the officers placed under Rule 32 within four weeks affects their rights and that such direction could not have been issued without hearing them. It is also seen from the records that the petitioners contend that they will have the benefit of subsequent directions of the Supreme Court on the efficacy of the degree certificates from the Deemed Open Universities through the distance education. The Regulation 3 of the 1994 Regulations reads as under: " 3. It is also seen from the records that the petitioners contend that they will have the benefit of subsequent directions of the Supreme Court on the efficacy of the degree certificates from the Deemed Open Universities through the distance education. The Regulation 3 of the 1994 Regulations reads as under: " 3. Who May Apply for Review: (a) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal, who was a party to the application before the Tribunal, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within his, knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason desires to obtain a review of the order made against him, may apply for reviewing the order/judgement made provided, however, no application for review shall lie: (i) by a person who has sought the leave of the Supreme Court of India under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, for preparing an appeal against the order of the Tribunal, sought to be reviewed, on the same grounds as are urged in the Review Application, but which was rejected by the Supreme Court of India. (ii) by a person who is a respondent in an appeal pending before the Supreme Court of India, preferred against the order in an application, the review of which is sought for, where he has the opportunity to present the case on which he applies for review before the Supreme Court. (b) Any person, who is not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal, but considers himself aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal passed in such proceedings may, with the permission of the Tribunal, on a petition made for this purpose, apply to the Tribunal for the review of an order made by the Tribunal." 4. This Court is of the view that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application without reference to the 1994 Regulations. This Court also opines that whether the petitioners are justified in contending that they consider themselves aggrieved in the circumstances stated above must be considered, and that therefore, there must be intervention to quash the Tribunal's impugned order and restore the petitioners' applications for reconsideration. 5. At this stage, Mr. This Court also opines that whether the petitioners are justified in contending that they consider themselves aggrieved in the circumstances stated above must be considered, and that therefore, there must be intervention to quash the Tribunal's impugned order and restore the petitioners' applications for reconsideration. 5. At this stage, Mr. M. S. Bhagwat submits that if indeed it is ultimately opined that the petitioners would have the advantage of the later decision of the Supreme Court on the efficacy of the degree certificates, they cannot be made to suffer reversion and there is every likelihood of the Tribunal's order in Application Nos. 5238 - 5277/2024 being implemented and therefore, this Court must ensure that Status Quo is maintained until at least the Tribunal considers the petitioners' request for the interim order when the review applications are listed in terms of this Court's observations. This Court finds that Status Quo must be maintained during the period the restored review applications are listed before the Tribunal lest the petitioners be prejudiced without due consideration on whether there must be a review or not otherwise. In the light of the above, the following: ORDER a. The petition is allowed-in-part. b. The Tribunal's order dated 16.09.2025 is quashed restoring the petitioners' review applications in Nos.94-108/2025 for reconsideration by the Tribunal reserving liberty to the petitioners to seek first listing of the review applications within three [3] weeks from today. c. The respondents are directed to maintain Status Quo as of today as regards the Tribunal's directions in the order dated 08.07.2025 on reversion in Application Nos. 5238 -5277/2024. d. It is needless to observe that this order shall be in force for a period of four [4] weeks and that the Tribunal shall consider the petitioners' request for continuation of any other arrangement uninfluenced by the protection that is now granted. e. The petitioners are reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the Tribunal for listing of the review applications within the four [4] weeks.