- (1.) The applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the review petitions are condoned.
(2.) The applications u/s.5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. These review petitions have been filed seeking review of the judgement of this Court dated 10.12.2015, whereby the writ petitions filed by the respondents were allowed on the basis of judgement rendered by Principal Seat Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11709/2013, Union of India & Ors. vs. Har Govid Sharma.
(3.) Shri R.D. Rastogi, learned Additional Solicitor General at the outset fairly submitted that the review petition was filed at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur in Union of India & Ors. vs. S.N. Singh Bhati, D.B. Writ Review Petition No.171/2016 along with other 25 connected matters seeking review of the judgement of this Court dated 10.08.2015, whereby 24 writ petitions were dismissed. The Principal Seat, Jodhpur has dismissed the review petitions and upheld the judgement passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench in the following terms: "6. Learned counsel for the respondents point out that similar is the view taken by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.30629/2014, Union of India & Ors. vs. D. Sivakumar & Anr. against which decision SLP(C) No.4848/2016, Union of India & Ors. vs. D. Sivakumar was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16th August, 2016 after condoning the delay. Review sought of the order dated 16th August, 2016 vide Review Petition (C) No.1939/2017 was dismissed by the Supreme Court as recently as on 13th September, 2017. Learned counsel further submit that even a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition 200807/2016, The Union of India & Ors. vs. Shri Basanna Nayak has taken a similar view. Learned counsel for the respondents point out that in the Madras Circle and Karnataka Circle the decisions have been implemented. 7. Learned counsel for the review petitioner does not dispute aforesaid facts pertaining to the decisions of the Madras High Court and Karnataka High Court having attained finality on the same issue. The decision passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal brings out that Group-D employees, irrespective of their seniority participated in a merit based selection and appointed to the higher post were never treated as a case of promotion. The examination was not a Limited Departmental Qualifying Examination but was a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. Before the MACP Scheme was introduced the department had a TBOP/BCR Financial upgradation Scheme and under the said Scheme benefit was granted treating the appointment as one of direct recruitment and not by way of promotion. 8. Thus we find no merit in the review petitions which are dismissed and since we are dismissing the review petitions on merits we are not going into the issue whether sufficient cause has been shown in the delay to be condoned.";