RATAN KUMAR Vs. JOACKIM TOPPO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties. Both the Civil Review applications are being disposed of by this common order. Civil Review No. 7 of 2008 arises from the order dated 12.9.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2151 of 2005Joackim Toppo etc and Civil Review No. 10 of 2008 arises from the order dated 3.12.2007, passed in W.P.(S) No. 1667 of 2006 -Cyprian Prakash Baxla; following the order passed in the case of Joackim Toppo.

(2.) MR . A. K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the review petitioners submitted that by the orders under review this Court directed the respondents to prepare a fresh gradation/seniority list in terms of the notification of the State Government vide Memo No. 1862 dated 31.3.2003; but the said notification dated 31.3.2003 is under challenge before the Division Bench in writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3795 of 2003 Dr. Pravin Shankar and others. He further submitted that the said notification dated 31.3.2003 was issued by the State Government in view of 85th constitutional amendment which was under challenge in the M. Nagraj case (2006) 8 SCC 212. In the concluding portion of M. Nagraj case, certain guidelines have been given, and in terms thereof, the State Government has constituted a committee for reconsidering the said notification dated 31.3.2003. In these circumstances, he submitted that the orders under review may be recalled and the main writ petitions should be tagged with the writ petition of Dr. Pravin Shankar in which larger issues affecting hundreds of persons are to be decided.

(3.) MR . Dubey, appearing for interveners in these civil review applications submitted that the orders under review have already been acted upon and before the stay order was passed in these civil review applications, several persons have already been promoted, and therefore, the review petitions have become infructuous.