(1) DELAY condoned.

(2) WE have carefully considered the review petitions and the grounds in support thereof. The fact that in a subsequent matter the judgment sought to be reviewed is referred for reconsideration to a Constitution Bench, is irrelevant for deciding the question whether the impugned judgment is required to be reviewed. See Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 which reads as follows:

"THE fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment."

(3) THUS even if subsequent Constitution Bench takes a contrary view, it will be no ground for reviewing the judgment in question. Mere reference to Constitution Bench stands on a still weaker footing. Even otherwise, on merits, it has to be kept in view that the decision sought to be reviewed has nothing to do with the question whether there can be dilution of standards in the matter of promotion of employees as referred to in Indra Sawhney case. The issue was entirely different. In the present cases, there was already dilutio