The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of seniority in promotions and the lack of educational qualification requirement for promotions, as well as the limited scope of review petitions.

1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all the petitions, same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, to maintain clarity, facts of Review Petition No. 4047 of 2013 seeking review of Judgment rendered in CWP No.10464/2011 decided on 13.12.2012, have been taken into consideration.

2. Petitioners were appointed as Class IV Sweepers on part time basis in the Ayurveda Department. They approached this Court seeking conferment of daily wage status and thereafter regularisation by way of CWP No. 5913/2011. CWP No. 5913/2011 was decided on 27.7.2011. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:

“3. Learned Dy. Advocate General, points out that some of the petitioners have been granted daily waged status, without taking note of the statutory provision regarding regularization, subject to availability of vacancy. In case the vacancies were available from the date of conferment of daily waged status, necessarily the judgment as extracted above, should apply to the case of such petitioners. Therefore, it is made clear t at the claim of the petitioners for regularization in class-IV posts should be addressed and considered subject to the availability of vacancies and subject to seniority, pay fixation, increments etc. Needful orders in that regard shall be passed within a period of four months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the Writ Petition(s) by the petitioners. In the process, in case any of the petitioner is found entitled for retrospective regularization, it is made clear that such petitioner shall be entitled to only notional benefits for the period from that date till today and the actual monetary benefits and for all other purposes they shall be treated as regular with effect from the date when the vacancy was available.”

3. In sequel to Judgment rendered by this Court on 27.7.2011, petitioners were conferred daily wage status on 6.6.2012 and thereafter their services were regularised on 3.10.2012.

4. Respondents No. 4 to 19 filed a CWP No. 10464/2011 seeking conferment of daily wage status and regularisation. Similarly situate persons also instituted CWP No. 2079/2012. CWP No. 10464/2012 was decided on 13.12.2012 and CWP No. 2079/2012 was decided on 3.7.2013. The operative portion of Judgment dated 13.12.2012 rendered in CWP No. 10464/2012 reads as under:

“3. There will be a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization alongwith others, who have joined the service alongwith them and regularized in service in case they are similarly situated. In case the only objection is that they do not possess the educational qualification, the same shall be ignored. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment alongwith copies of the judgments, referred to above, by the petitioners before the respondents/competent authority. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.”

5. Operative portion of Judgment rendered in CWP No. 2079/2009 on 20.10.2012, reads as under:

“3. Therefore, there will be a direction to first respondent to look into the matter in light of the observations made above and take appropriate action within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner.

6. In sequel to directions of this Court in CWP No. 10464/2012, respondents No. 1 to 3 issued office orders dated 2.4.2013 and dated 4.5.2013, whereby petitioners were reverted. Petitioners and similarly situate persons filed CWP No. 2968 of 2013 and 4012 of 2013 against their reversion orders dated 2.4.2013 and 4.5.2013, respectively. These petitions were dismissed by this Court on 6.8.2013 by directing the petitioners to file review petitions. It is in these circumstances that the present petitions have bee