JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 25-08-2014 passed in Review Petition No. 228/2014 by which the writ Court has allowed the review petition. 3. The appellant appeared as a departmental candidate for appointment to the post of Assistant Manager-Junior Engineer. The aforesaid opportunity was provided to the candidates, who acquired Diploma in Engineering (Electrical)/(Mechanical)/(Civil)/(Electronics) vide circular dated 01st August, 2012 (Annexure P-12). It is mentioned in the circular that those persons, who are working on the post lower to the Junior Engineers and have acquired qualification in Diploma in Engineering (Electrical)/(Mechanical)/(Civil)/(Radio & Electronics) during service, may be considered for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer (Distribution)/(Civil) on probation. The following was eligibility criteria:- "Eligibility Criteria:- (i) Candidate must have obtained Diploma in Engineering with at least 50% marks from M.P. Govt. recognized Institutes through part time evening classes or full time Diploma in Engineering from any AICTE recognized Institute during or before Academic Session 2011-12 with prior permission of Company/erstwhile M.P. State Electricity Board. Diploma through any other means or correspondence course will not be considered for this purpose. (ii) Candidate must have put in at least 4 years service on regular establishment in respective original cadres. (iii) Candidate's performance during the last 4 years must be minimum 6 grade points (Two years of Grading 'B' and 2 years of Grading 'C' i.e. 2B+2C)." 4. The appellant applied for the said post and the Committee did not consider the candidature of the appellant, on the ground that at that time currency of punishment in regard to award to the appellant as stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, was in vogue. The matter was challenged by the appellant before the writ Court. The writ Court allowed the writ petition (Writ Petition No. 5980/2013) vide order dated 03rd February, 2014 and ordered to convene a review Selection Committee/DPC. Subsequently, a review petition (Review Petition No. 228/2014) was filed by the respondents, submitting before the writ Court that it was not a case of promotion, it was a case of appointment of the persons who acquired certain qualifications during service. That review petition has been allowed vide order dated 25-08-2014. 5. Subsequently, a review petition (Review Petition No. 228/2014) was filed by the respondents, submitting before the writ Court that it was not a case of promotion, it was a case of appointment of the persons who acquired certain qualifications during service. That review petition has been allowed vide order dated 25-08-2014. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no ground to allow the review petition filed by the respondents, because the appeal filed by the appellant against the imposition of punishment was allowed on 20th October, 2012 and the consideration was made on 23rd October, 2012. Hence, the appellant was eligible to be considered. 6. This may be a case, but the writ Court treated the order of appointment as promotion, that's why the writ Court allowed the review petition and it is in accordance with law as per the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others, reported in : (2013) 8 SCC 320 . Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under in regard to the facts that in which circumstances the review petition is maintainable :- "20.1. When the review will be maintainable : (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reasons" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule." The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd." 7. The appellant is at liberty to convince the writ Court that he was eligible to be considered for appointment because his appeal was allowed. We hope that the matter be decided by the writ Court expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. 8. Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.