Review petitions fail where later reference to a Constitution Bench does not justify review, and the underlying objection lacked merit.

Review is not maintainable merely because the judgment under challenge has been referred to a later Constitution Bench; reversal or modification of the legal position in another case is not a ground for review under the Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, and a reference for reconsideration has even less relevance. On merits, the earlier judgment concerned dilution of standards in departmental promotion examinations limited to SC/ST candidates, so the objection based on Indra Sawhney did not apply on the facts, and Article 16(4-A) further removed the objection. The review petitions were therefore dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petitions were maintainable on the ground that the judgment sought to be reviewed had been referred for reconsideration by a subsequent Constitution Bench, and whether the merits disclosed any error warranting review.

Analysis: The Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 makes it clear that reversal or modification of the legal position in another case is not a ground for review. A mere reference of the issue to a Constitution Bench is of still weaker relevance. On merits, the earlier judgment dealt with a different question concerning dilution of standards in departmental promotion examinations confined to SC/ST candidates, and the objection based on Indra Sawhney did not apply on the facts. In any event, the insertion of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India also removed the objection on merits.

Conclusion: The review petitions were not sustainable and were dismissed.

---