RAKESH KUMAR DEV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice on behalf of opposite party Nos. 5, 6 and 7 has been accepted by Shri Sharad Kumar Srivastava. Let notice be issued to the opposite party No. 1. Mr. J. N. Mathur accepts notice on behalf of the opposite parties 2 and 3. We do not find it necessary to issue notice to the opposite party No. 4 at this stage. This Review Application has been filed with a delay of few days. Since the applicant was not impleaded in the writ petition, therefore, he has filed the Review Application on getting the knowledge of the order passed by the Division Bench dated 9. 9. 2008. Learned counsel for the respondents do not have any serious objection in condoning the delay. We also feel that since the applicant was not impleaded in the writ petition, therefore, the review application could have been filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the order, therefore, it cannot be treated to be a delayed application. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the review application. Shri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents though admits that the present applicant was not impleaded in the writ petition, but says that the promotion order of the applicant itself recites that the promotion of the applicant is being made subject to final decision in Writ Petition No. 744 (SB) of 2005 and therefore, it cannot be said that because of the absence of the applicant in the writ petition, the order suffers from any manifest error. Shri Manish Kumar appearing for the applicant says that by the order under review, the seniority list of 2005 has been set aside and the applicant, who was shown senior to the private respondents has been placed below them and there is every likelihood that the promotion made in the year 2005 shall be cancelled. Shri Sharad Kumar Srivastava as well as Shri J. N. Mathur appearing for the respondents say that the order does not say that the promotion already made is quashed or set aside, but only issues a direction for considering the promotion of the petitioners of the writ petition, namely, respondents. That being so, we direct that the promotions already made shall not be set aside nor the applicant be reverted in pursuance of the impugned order, but the rest of the exercise can be done, as directed by the Division Bench of this Court, subject to further orders of the Court. Let the counter-affidavit be filed within three weeks. List in the month of January, 2009 whenever the concerned Bench is available. .