B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE respondent-Mukeshkumar P. Bhayani who was working on Class-IV post of peon with the appellant-Gujarat Agriculture University was duly selected by the Selection Committee for the purpose of promotion to Class-III post and whose name was duly included by the Selection Committee in the select list came to be promoted by the order passed by G. K. Patel the then Director of Campus of the Appellant-University to Class-III post of Jr. Clerk Consequent upon the order of promotion the respondent took over charge on 11 and started working as Jr. Clerk This order of promotion was challenged by 2 other persons by filing Regular Civil Suit No. 622/85 before the Court of learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (SD) Junagadh without joining present respondent as a party-defendant in whose favour the order of promotion was passed by the Director of Campus by joining only Vice-Chancellor and Director of Campus as defendants in the said suit. ( 2 ) IN view of the filing of the above suit No. 622 and as the Vice-Chancellor was of the opinion that the impugned order of promotion of the respondent passed by the Director of Campus was not as per the Rules and not in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 (4) of the Gujarat Agricultural University Act 1969 therefore the Vice-Chancellor cancelled the impugned order of promotion of the present respondent with effect from 1-8-85 and reverted the respondent to his original post of peon on lower cadre which was communicated by the Registrar of the University by his order dt. 31 ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor cancelling his order of promotion present respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 730 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (SD) Junagadh. In the said suit the respondent filed an application Exh. 5 for ad interim injunction and the defendant University filed application Exh. 6 and the order of status quo was granted on 9-8-85 Reply Exh. 10 was filed to the injunction application and the order of status quo was confirmed and after hearing the parties on 24 till final disposal of the suit against which the defendant University prefer red Civil Misc. Appeal No. 167/85 before the learned Jt. District Judge Junagadh which was allowed and the order passed below Exh. 10 was filed to the injunction application and the order of status quo was confirmed and after hearing the parties on 24 till final disposal of the suit against which the defendant University prefer red Civil Misc. Appeal No. 167/85 before the learned Jt. District Judge Junagadh which was allowed and the order passed below Exh. 5 was set aside Being aggrieved by the said order present respondent filed Civil Revision Application No. 348/86 before this Court However while rejecting said Civil Revn. Application on 23-4-86 this Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit on or before 21-4-86 It may be noted that before the learned Civil Judge (SD) it was pointed out by the University that Reg. Civil Suit No. 622/85 was already filed and a copy of the plaint of that suit was also produced on record. The learned Civil Judge considered the same and held that the competent court has not passed any final order in the said suit which disturbs the appointment of the plaintiff (present respondent ). The learned Civil Judge after considering various judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court held that no opportunity of being heard was given to the plaintiff (present respondent) before reverting him from the post of Jr. Clerk to the post of peon. Said order of reversion prejudicially affect the plaintiff and therefore required to be set aside. The learned Civil Judge has also considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the University that the Director of Campus has committed illegality while appointing the plaintiff; but according to the learned Judge even if it is to be accepted as true then also it was not the fault of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was already posted as Jr. Clerk and in fact worked as such for some time. The learned Civil Judge relying upon the judgment of this court further held that once the employee is appointed then his appointment cannot be cancelled by an order without giving a proper opportunity of being heard. The learned Civil Judge has also held that it is not the case of defendant-University that the plaintiff does not fulfil the requisite qualifications. In fact according to the Ld. Judge the plaintiff was qualified for appointment to the post of Clerk and he was duly selected by the Selection Committee after interview. The Ld. The learned Civil Judge has also held that it is not the case of defendant-University that the plaintiff does not fulfil the requisite qualifications. In fact according to the Ld. Judge the plaintiff was qualified for appointment to the post of Clerk and he was duly selected by the Selection Committee after interview. The Ld. Judge has also considered the fact that the Director of Campus did consider the noting at Exh. 59 and after considering that noting he has issued the appointment order and the Director of Campus was legally authorised to make appointment. In view of that the Ld. Civil Judge (SD) by his impugned judgment and order 8-5-86 decreed the suit of the plaintiff (present respondent) and declared that the subsequent order of reversion dt. 31-7-85 reverting the plaintiff from the Class III post of Jr. Clerk to Class-IV post of peon is illegal null and void and the defendant University was directed to reinstate the plaintiff to the post of Jr. Clerk as per his earlier order of promotion dt. 10-7-85 with full back wages and continuity in service and all other consequential benefits of service. ( 4 ) PRESENT appellant challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (SD) in favour of the present respondent-plaintiff before The Ld. Jt. District Judge Junagadh by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 103/86. the Ld. Jt. District Judge also agreed with the reasonings assigned by the Ld. Civil Judge in his order and the view taken by him in his judgment. Therefore by his impugned judgment and order dt. 4-9-86 the Ld. Jt. District Judge dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Civil Judge. ( 5 ) AT this stage it is required to be noted that after the appeal of the petitioners came to be dismissed on 8-5-86 a Regular Civil Suit No. 622/85 was filed by two persons against the Director of Campus and Vice-Chancellor of the University challenging the order of promotion passed in favour of the present plaintiff on 10 by the Director of Campus which came to be decreed by another 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (SD) by his judgment and decree dt. 18-4-87. The Learned Judge also held in that suit that the plaintiff of that suit are entitled to be promoted as Class-III employees. Civil Judge (SD) by his judgment and decree dt. 18-4-87. The Learned Judge also held in that suit that the plaintiff of that suit are entitled to be promoted as Class-III employees. He also held and declared that promotion given by the impugned order dt. 10-7-85 (in favour of the present respondent) is illegal and defendants are restrained permanently from implementing the promotion given by the impugned order dt. 10-7-85. It is surprising to note that Reg. Civil Suit No. 730/85 which already came to be decree by another Civil Judge (SD) on 8-5-85 in favour of the present respondent plaintiff against which Regular Civil Appeal No. 103/86 preferred by the present petitioner which also came to be dismissed by the Jt. District Judge by his judgment and decree dt. 4-9-86 was not at all brought to the notice of the learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (SD) who decreed Reg. Civil Suit No. 622/8d on 18-4-87 by the present petitioners. Though the present respondent was not a party to that suit and the impugned order of promotion dt. 10-7-85 passed in his favour declared to be illegal by the 2nd Learned Civil Judge (SD) by his judgment and decree dt. 18-4-87. ( 6 ) IT is to be noted that the present petitioners had already filed Second Appeal No. 275/86 against the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Civil Judge (SD) dated 8-5-86 in Reg. Civil Suit No. 730/85 which was confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 103/86 by the Learned Jt. Dist Judge on 4 before this Court. ( 7 ) SAID Second Appeal No. 275/86 came up for hearing on admission before this Court (Coram A. S. Qureshi J. as then he was) on 30-4-87 i. e. after the Regular Civil Suit No. 622/85 came to be decreed by another 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (SD) on 18 Still that fact was not brought to the notice of this Court on 30-4-87 by the present petitioners and this Court after considering the reasons assigned by the learned Civil Judge (JD) in Regular Civil Suit No. 730/85 and by the learned Jt. District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 103 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the courts below by one word order dismissed. District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 103 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the courts below by one word order dismissed. ( 8 ) THE petitioners want review of the aforesaid order of dismissal passed on 30-4-1987 in Second Appeal No. 275/86 in this review application on the ground that against the aforesaid order of dismissal passed by this Court the petitioners had prefer red S. L. P. before the Supreme Court. And though the S. L. P. was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 17-8-87. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to observe that the University can file a review petition and seek directions in view of the judgment dt. 18-4-87 passed by the Learned Jt. Civil Judge (SD) in Civil Suit No. 622 however it is to be noted that the petitioners themselves have produced the zerox copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court in S. L. P. at page 82 of the compilation of this Misc. Civil Application. The said order passed by the Supreme Court is reproduced below: s. L. P. is dismissed the above order passed by the Supreme Court was brought to the notice of Mr. Patel L. A. for the petitioners. In the impugned order the Supreme Court has no where observed that the University can file a review petition. Thereupon Mr. Patel produced a copy of the letter dt. 17-8-87 addressed by Mr. R. P. Kapur Advocate of the Supreme Court who appeared with senior Counsel Mr. T. U. Mehta before the Supreme Court in the above S. L. P. Relying upon the statement made in the said letter of Mr. Kapur Mr. Patel submitted that. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court made an oral observations that the University can file a review petition and seek directions in view of the judgment dt. 18-4-87 passed by the learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (SD) in Regular Civil Suit No. 622/85. He has further submitted that this was the very basis of prefer ring the present review application which was time barred and therefore in the application for condonation of delay in filing Misc. Civil Application same ground was slated. He has further submitted that this Court (Coram: S. M. Soni J.) on 16-4-91 relying upon the said averments made in the application for condonation of delay condoned the delay. Civil Application same ground was slated. He has further submitted that this Court (Coram: S. M. Soni J.) on 16-4-91 relying upon the said averments made in the application for condonation of delay condoned the delay. Therefore I should accept the statement made in the said letter and I should entertain this review application in order to appreciate the above contention raised by Mr. Patel the relevant portion of the letter of Advocate Mr. Kapur is required to be reproduced below which is as under after hearing Shri Mehta Their Lordships were pleased to observe that since it was a case pertaining to the peon of the University Their Lordships are not inclined to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India Their Lordships were accordingly pleased to observe that the University can file a review Petition and seek directions in view of the judgment dt. 18 issued by the learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (SD) Junagadh in Civil Suit No. 622 of 1985 Their Lordships have finally dismissed the petition now the question arises in this case is that whether this Court should believe the contents of the letter of Advocate of the Supreme Court who appeared for the petitioner in S. L. P. before the Supreme Court. The answer is No because once there is an order in writing by the Supreme Court stating in more than clear terms that S. L. P. is dismissed there is no question that thereafter the Supreme Court will make an oral observation that the University can file a review petition If at all the Supreme Court was of that view then either it might have been stated in the order itself or the Supreme Court might have permitted the present petitioners to withdraw the S. L. P. in order to give an opportunity to file a review application against the order passed by this Court in Second Appeal on 30-4-1987. But that is not so in this case that apart even from the contents of the aforesaid letter it is more than clear that Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were aware of the fact that the S. L. P. was filed by the University against a peon of the University therefore on that granted alone. But that is not so in this case that apart even from the contents of the aforesaid letter it is more than clear that Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were aware of the fact that the S. L. P. was filed by the University against a peon of the University therefore on that granted alone. Their Lordships were not inclined to interfere with the orders of this Court passed in Second Appeal confirming the orders passed by the courts below under Article 136 of the Constitution of India If that be so one can hardly believe that Their Lordships of the Supreme Court would orally observe that University can file a review application. It is interesting to note that in a suit which was filed earlier in point of time the judgment was delivered by the Trial Court i. e. 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (SD) on 18-4-87 and in a subsequent suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 730/85 the decree was passed in favour of the present respondent on 8 and the appeal against the said judgment and decree was also decided on 4-9-86 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD) was confirmed against which the above Second Appeal was preferred before this Court by the petitioners which came to be dismissed on 30 Before that in another suit the judgment was delivered by the learned Civil Judge on 18 Therefore it can be easily presumed that the petitioners who were respondents in both the suits were well aware of the judgment delivered by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (SD) Junagadh in Reg. Civil Suit No. 622/85 on 18-4-87. But there is nothing on record to show that the above fact was brought to the notice before this Court at the time of hearing of the above Second Appeal on 30 and in spite of that judgment this Court dismissed the Second Appeal. It is further to be noted that for the reasons best known to the petitioners they did not want to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (SD) Junagadh in Regular Civil Suit No. 622/85 further in the higher courts. But it clearly appears from the further contents of the letter of Advocate Mr. It is further to be noted that for the reasons best known to the petitioners they did not want to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (SD) Junagadh in Regular Civil Suit No. 622/85 further in the higher courts. But it clearly appears from the further contents of the letter of Advocate Mr. Kapur that after filing S. L. P. in the present proceedings the petitioners realised that there are two different judgments in two different suits against the petitioners and therefore with a view to come out of the liability for contempt this review application was filed. Because in the letter of Advocate Mr. Kapur it is further stated that In the circumstance the University should file an application in the High Court seeking directions in regard to the self - contradictory judgments. The prayer should be that the University be not held liable for contempt inasmuch as compliance of one judgment would result into contempt of the other judgment. In fact no such prayer is made in the present application for review. It is upto the petitioners to make such a prayer if they think it fit. However the fact remains that no such prayer is made. It is further pertinent to note that in the said letter itself it is stated that In the alternative the Court of 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (SD) at Junagadh be moved in Civil Suit No. 622 in 1985 Thus as per the said letter two alternatives were suggested by the learned Advocate Mr. Kapur either to make an application for review of the order passed in Second Appeal or the University may move the learned Civil Judge (SD) in Regular Civil Suit No. 622/85. However as stated above for the reasons best known to the petitioners they have filed one application in this case for review. This is not at all proper and the same is required to be condemned in very strong words. The order passed by this court in Second Appeal No. 275 of 1986 on 30 dismissing the Second Appeal cannot be reviewed also on the ground that the order passed by this court has merged into the order of the Supreme Court on 17-8-87 in S. L. P. No. 819/87 when the same was dismissed in limine. Mr. The order passed by this court in Second Appeal No. 275 of 1986 on 30 dismissing the Second Appeal cannot be reviewed also on the ground that the order passed by this court has merged into the order of the Supreme Court on 17-8-87 in S. L. P. No. 819/87 when the same was dismissed in limine. Mr. Patel strenuously urged that once this Court (Coram: S. M. Soni-J.) accepted the averment made by the petitioners in the application for condonation of delay that on account of the oral observations made by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court and delay was condoned therefore I also must accept the said averment and entertain this review application. It is to be noted that my learned brothel S. M. Soni-J. on 16-4-91 condoned the delay on cauainau of payment of cost of Rs. 1000. 00 to the respondent. That does not mean that this court has relied upon the above averment for condonation of delay and condoned the delay. Therefore there is no substance in this contention raised by Mr. Patel and it fails. Mr. Patel has further contended that in view of the judgment and decree passed on 18-4-87 by the learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (SD) Junagadh in Reg. Civil Suit No. 622/85 the order passed by this court in the above appeal on 30-4-87 is required to be reviewed because there are two different Judgments against the University and the University would be committing breach of one of the judgments if it is not complying with the said judgment and therefore. it would face contempt proceedings. ( 9 ) AS stated earlier the above judgment and decree dt. 18-4-87 which could have been brought to the notice of this Court at the time when the order dt. 30-4-87 was passed by this Court in the above said Second Appeal. But there is nothing on record to show that the above fact was brought to the notice of this Court. In fact as pointed out earlier the fact regarding the judgment and decree passed in the present proceedings confirmed in appeal was not even brought to the notice of 2 Jt. Civil Judge who decided the aforesaid Reg. But there is nothing on record to show that the above fact was brought to the notice of this Court. In fact as pointed out earlier the fact regarding the judgment and decree passed in the present proceedings confirmed in appeal was not even brought to the notice of 2 Jt. Civil Judge who decided the aforesaid Reg. Civil Suit No. 622/85 on 18-4-87 by the present petitioners and merely because different judgment is given in the suit by the learned Civil Judge who is subordinate to the High Court it would not be a ground for this court to review its order passed in Second Appeal whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge in a Suit and Jt. District Judge in appeal were confirmed ( 10 ) IN view of the above discussion I am of the opinion that this review application is not at all maintainable and even on merits also no case is made out to review the order passed by this court (Coram A. S. Qureshi-J.) (as he then was) in Second Appeal No. 275/86 dismissing the same at the admission stage Therefore this application fails and is dismissed The petitioners shall pay Rs. 2500/ - towards the costs of this application to the respondent ( 11 ) HOWEVER I am at pains to observe that though the main Second Appeal No. 275/86 was Summarily dismissed with one word order dismissed in an application for review of the said order I am required to pass such a lengthy order which runs into about 15 pages because Mr. Patel L. A. for the petitioners not only argued the matter at great length but insisted that I should deal with his each and every argument the University can afford to spend after litigation in the courts of law but a person like a poor peon-respondent herein cannot afford to fight the litigation for a long time because it will cause a lot of mental agony and financial difficulties for him Instead of making a prestige issue of the matter and to spend lavishly after this litigation the University could have used that amount which it had spent towards the litigation for any other good purpose either for the students or for the staff members of the University I hope that now the University will rest it here and accept the judgment of the courts in its true spirit as the present respondent is a Class IV employee and he was duly selected by the Selection Committee for the promotion to Class III post and in fact he was promoted in 1985 to Class III post of Clerk and also worked as a Clerk for few days therefore he should not be denied his legitimate right to work as a Clerk. With the above observations this application fails and is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2500. 00 The petitioners are ordered to pay Rs. 2000. 00 towards cost of this petition to the respondent (RPV) Order accordingly. .