(1.) Whereas R.P.No.31/2016, R.P.No.33/2016 and R.P.No.36/2016 have been filed seeking a review of the judgment dated March 05, 2015 disposing of WP(C) No.388/2015, W.P.(C) No.394/2015 and W.P.(C) No.972/2015; limited to petitioner No.1 of W.P.(C) No.388/2015, petitioner No.2 of W.P.(C) No.394/2015 and petitioner No.1 of W.P.(C) No.972/2015. R.P.No.35/2016 has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated April 17, 2015 disposing of W.P.(C) No.3734/2015, but limited to petitioner No.1. R.P.No.28/2016 has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated May 15, 2015 disposing of W.P.(C) No.4808/2015 in which there was a sole petitioner. R.P.No.34/2016 has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated May 28, 2015 disposing of W.P.(C) No.5605/2015 in which there was a sole petitioner.
(2.) It is not in dispute today that the main judgment which was followed in subsequent three judgments is the one dated March 05, 2015 and thus effectively we would be called upon to consider the review petitions with reference to the reasoning in the decision dated March 05, 2015.
(3.) It is not in dispute that the issue raised in all the writ petitions concern implementation of the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP), as per which those who had rendered 12 years' service and had earned no promotion were, subject to fitness, entitled to the first financial upgradation and subject to fitness if no second promotion was earned upon completion of 24 years' service, to a second financial upgradation. The ACP Scheme was introduced in the year 1999 to avoid stagnation. Concededly, the scheme envisaged placement of the incumbent in the next higher grade; akin to an in -situ promotion.