JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. G. Ramaswamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-Institute has given a brief note on the events that have succeeded this Court's judgment in Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P. ( 1993(1) SCC 645 ). While it is not necessary for us to go into the details of the note submitted by Mr. Ramaswamy, there can be no doubt that diverse orders have been passed by different Benches of this Court after the decision was rendered in Unnikrishnan's case. The decision in Unnikrishnan's case was rendered by a Bench of five learned Judges of this Court and, therefore, Mr. Ramaswamy submitted that it is necessary to refer the matters to a Five-Judge Bench to enable that Bench to reconsider or review certain directions given therein. We are told that a Three-Judge Bench presided over by Kuldip Singh, J. has passed an order yesterday fixing some such matters on 8.8.95. We, therefore, deem it appropriate that these matters may also be placed before that Bench so that it may consider Mr. Ramaswamy's submission that there being several orders passed from time to time after the decision in Unnikrishnan's case it would be desirable that a Five-Judge Bench looks into the matter afresh in view of the experience gained on the working of the directions given in Unnikrishnan's case and they have been understood and implemented by different Benches of this Court. Let these matters be placed before that Bench along with the other matters coming up on 8.8.95. 2. Mr. G. Ramaswamy further states that there is a substantive Writ Petition (W.P. (C) No. 507/95) filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by this very petitioner in which the impact and effect of the various orders passed by the different Benches post-Unnikrishnan have been highlighted. It would be desirable that even that Writ Petition is placed along with these matters before that Bench on 8.8.95.