that a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359 expressly concerned with the issue of maintainability of a review petition after the dismissal in limine of the SLP and after noticing conflicting judgments held that a review petition can be filed subsequent to the dismissal of an SLP inasmuch as at the stage of dismissal of an SLP, there exists no appeal in the eyes of law as at that stage the Supreme Court is exercising its discretionary

jurisdiction; only when the Supreme Court grants leave in SLP and converts it into an appeal and the appeal thereafter is disposed of with or without reasons, that the judgment of the Supreme Court merges with that of the high court

2)review petition may take a year or so to be disposed of

Firstly, there has been a mistake at their end I guess.

Secondly, as once they have gone to the Supreme Court under SLP, and getting the same dismissed then they can’t go to the High Court for revision.

Thirdly, as it would get hit by the Supreme Court if they happen to move to High Court now.

If department has given an undertaking that order would be complied with by 15 th may 2018 under taking is binding on the department

They have to give you joining before said date

Chances of success in review petition are bleak

As laid down by Order 47 rule 5 CPC as far as possible the same two learned Judges or more Judges who decided the original proceedings have to hear the review petition arising from their own judgment. Thus in substance a review amounts to reconsideration of its own decisions by the very same court.

2) . It appears that rule 37 of Chapter XXXI provides that where the Judge who passed the decree or order sought to be reviewed has left the High Court. Rule 37 provides the procedure when the Judge is absent. The said rule makes it clear that the Judge who passed the decree or order sought to be reviewed has left the High Court or is absent on leave for more than 3 months, the application for review may be made to any other Judge on the original side.

14. If appears therefore to me that in terms of the said rules the parties seeking review shall move before the Judge who passed the decree or order for a rule. It is therefore, necessary that when such Judge is available, the application for review is to be moved before such Judge who passed the decree or order. The rules therefore contemplate a situation where as far as practicable and possible Order 47 rule 5 should be followed where, however, it is not possible due to non-availability of the concerned Judge the Original Side Rule provides that this may be placed before any Judge.

4) In Pitambar Mallik and anr. v. Ramchandra Prasad and Ors. , the Chief Justice's power to place a review application before any other Judge has been upheld.

100. In Manoharlal Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. referring to Rule 4 of M.P. High Court Rules, the division bench held that on retirement of one of the Judges review has to be heard by two Judges specially when the Chief Justice has directed and constituted a bench.

5) in your case on one judge being transferred to another court the review petition would be heard by division bench constituted by CJ of which one of judges woukd be judge who passed original order

As you have not mentioned the facts laws the merits of the case but based on the privious orders from high court and dismisal of SLP the chance of succeeding review is very less.

Further they can file review as SLP was not converted into appeal and it was rejected so they remedy to file a review but there seems no chance it will succeed. Further reviews are disposed fast though it can take some time or it can be decided upfront after hearing both parties but it won't take long.

Either they have to take stay or if the stay in review is not grandes they have to comply with order as it amount to the contempt of court.

So they have to give posting or pray before court pending review to stay the order if it is filed on 8 it can be heard before 15.

Fir thee the review petition is heard by same bench but due to transfer one judge is not here a different bench with one old judge can be assigned with matter.

If there would not be stay on that petition which they have filed then on 15/5/2018 you should move a representation to that department for joining. They ll not allow you and after that move a petition for contempt against them and execution of the order which was in your favour but you have to give representation that as per order w want to join that post

Dear Client,

First of all, review is barred by time. Condonation of delay will required.

Transfer of judgement dosen`t matter, next judge will decide on merit if admitted after condonation.

Let them file review what matters, file contempt if order not complied in given time.

Depending on the availability of the judges for hearing on the review petition, the case may move accordingly.

The review petition may not fetch any great result for the petitioner especially when the SLP oon this has been dismissed, but without seeing the orders in SLP no concrete opinion can be rendered.

As of today the department filed the review petiton also back in april they gave an undertaking that divisional bench order will be complied on or within 15/05/2018. so what option they have left ? will they give us joining because review petition hearing wont happen with 15/05/2018 .

Since the petition is again pending before high court now in the name of review, the department may not adhere to the ir coimmitment, citing the pendency of this petition as reason, hence you may have to wait.

If the SLP is dismissed in Supreme court the review will be filed in sc. The time period cannot be quantified. But it will be decided expeditiously.