JUDGMENT : Saurabh Lavania, J. Case called out. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. The matter is very old and it relates to the year 1989 and accordingly, in the absence of the counsel for the petitioner, we have considered it proper to take up the matter and decide the issue involved. 2. From the perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court with respect to orders dated 31.08.1989 and 09.11.1989. Vide order dated 31.08.1989, the petitioner was promoted to the post under Scale-II in the pay scale 1825-100-2925 and he was placed under jurisdiction of Zonal Manager, Lucknow Zone. Date of reporting of new place of posting mentioned in the order of promotion is 11.09.1989. In the said order it has been specifically stated that if the petitioner fail to report by 18.09.1989 then the promotion will stand annulled. The relief sought in the writ petition, related with the order dated 31.08.1989, are to the effect that the place of posting mentioned in the order dated 31.08.1989 be quashed and the opposite parties be directed to post the petitioner in Audit Department of the Bank. Vide order dated 09.11.1989 the petitioner was debarred from promotion to the next grade for three years and the same is under challenge on the main ground to the effect that the Clause 13.1, which is mentioned in the order impugned, is not applicable in the facts of the case. 3. From the record, it is also evident that the petitioner moved an application for amendment on 06.02.2006 but it appears that the same was not allowed and as such, no useful purpose would be served in considering the contents of the application for amendment. 4. It is also evident from the record that the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from the services of the Bank on 31.07.2003. The fact pertaining to retirement is not disputed. 5. The writ petition was taken up on 31.08.2006 i.e. after the date of superannuation mentioned hereinabove and on the statement of counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. 6. Thereafter, an application for recall of order dated 31.08.2006 was filed through Sri K.K. Gautam, Advocate, and the said application was also dismissed on 18.07.2008, on the said date Sri K.K. Gautam, Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 6. Thereafter, an application for recall of order dated 31.08.2006 was filed through Sri K.K. Gautam, Advocate, and the said application was also dismissed on 18.07.2008, on the said date Sri K.K. Gautam, Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Another application was filed for recalling of orders dated 31.08.2008 and 18.07.2008 through Sri K.K. Gautam, Advocate, and the said application was also dismissed for non prosecution on 01.07.2009. Thereafter, again an application was filed for recalling of order dated 01.07.2009 by Sri S.K. Dikshit, Advocate, and the said application was also rejected vide order dated 06.12.2013 on the ground to the effect that the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 31.08.2006 in view of the statement made by Sri U.K. Srivastava, learned counsel and the present application has been moved by another counsel and being so, is not maintainable. The orders dated 31.08.2006, 18.07.2008, 01.07.2009 and 06.12.2013 are quoted below for ready reference:- Order dated 31.08.2006. Hon'ble U.K. Dhaon, J. Hon'ble Alok Singh,J. Sri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate holding bried of Sri U.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition has become infructuous. The writ petition is dismissed being infructuous. 31.08.2006 PAL/10414-89 Order dated 18.07.2008. Hon'ble Anjani Kumar,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J. We have heard Sri K.K. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 31.08.2006 as having become infructuous. Learned counsel for the opposite parties states that this petition has become infructuous. Learned counsel for the application has stated that the petitioner has already retired from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to argue the case on merits. We do not see any reason to recall the order dated 31.08.2006. The application is accordingly dismissed. 18.07.2008 Rizvi (C.M.A. No. 31610 of 2007 in (W.P. No. 10414 (S/B) of 1989., Order dated 01.07.2009. Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J. Hon'ble Raj Mani Chauhan,J. Case called out. None appears on behalf of the petitioner to press this application. The application is rejected for non-prosecution. 01.07.2009 Renu/CMA No. 71808 of 2008 in re: W.P. No. 10414 (S/B)of 1989 and Order dated 06.12.2013. Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J. Hon'ble Ashok Pal Singh,J. CMA No.58913 of 2013: Restoration Application This is an application moved by the learned counsel on the basis of subsequent engagement. The application is rejected for non-prosecution. 01.07.2009 Renu/CMA No. 71808 of 2008 in re: W.P. No. 10414 (S/B)of 1989 and Order dated 06.12.2013. Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J. Hon'ble Ashok Pal Singh,J. CMA No.58913 of 2013: Restoration Application This is an application moved by the learned counsel on the basis of subsequent engagement. The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 31.8.2006 in view of statement made by Sri U.K. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel of this Court. The application moved by the present counsel on the basis of subsequent engagement, is not maintainable in view of settled law by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The application is accordingly rejected. Order Date :-6.12.2013 Rajneesh DR-PS) 7. After passing of the orders quoted hereinabove, the petitioner again moved an application dated 25.03.2014 through Sri Radhey Shyam Mishra, Advocate, for recalling of above quoted orders under the heading of “Application for Review of Orders dated 31.08.2006, 18.07.2008, 01.07.2009 and 06.12.2013.” 8. For deciding the aforesaid application dated 25.03.2014 moved by Sri Radhey Shyam Mishra, Advocate, this Court considered it proper to consider the material available on record and conduct of the petitioner related to moving of application after application on the same issue. 9. Considering the material available on record, it is clear that the petitioner has already retired on attaining of age of superannuation on 31.07.2003 and accordingly the prayer(s) related with place of posting have now become infructuous. 10. It appears from the record that the Bank through its counsel filed the objection to the application for recall dated 31.08.2006 and the said objection was filed on 8th July, 2008. Another objection was filed by the Bank on 23.03.2009 and the same was filed with respect to C.M. Application No. 71808 of 2008. In both the objections, it has been specifically stated that the petitioner has retired from the services of the Bank on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2003 and all admissible retiral dues/benefits have been paid to the petitioner. Along with the aforesaid objections, the Bank has also filed the relevant portion of the Promotion Policy of the Bank. The relevant portion of the Promotion Policy is quoted hereinunder:- 13.1. Along with the aforesaid objections, the Bank has also filed the relevant portion of the Promotion Policy of the Bank. The relevant portion of the Promotion Policy is quoted hereinunder:- 13.1. If any officer who is eligible to be included in the ‘Zone of Consideration’ abstains from participating in the promotion process without adducing sufficiently convincing reasons, he shall be ineligible to participate in the next one process or for a period of two years reckoning from the date of initiation of promotion process in which he so abstains, whichever is earlier, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him in this regard. Such officers, upon being eligible again to participate in the next promotion process, shall be treated as superseded officers for the purpose of ‘Zone of Consideration’ as stated under Clause 3.7 (b) hereinabove. 13.2. If any officer refuses to accept the promotion when offered to him, he shall be debarred for a period of three years or two promotion processes which would be conducted thereafter, whichever is earlier. The period of three years shall reckon from the date of refusal of the promotion order. 11. It reveals from the above quoted portion of the Promotion Policy that if any Officer refuses to accept the promotion when offered to him, he shall be debarred for a period of three years or two promotion processes which would be conducted thereafter. Mentioning a wrong provision would not invalidate the Order. 12. In the instant case, the petitioner himself failed to join on the place of promotion and keeping in view the same, the order dated 09.08.1989 debarring the petitioner from the promotion for the next grade for three years was passed. The policy of the Bank has not been challenged in the writ petition and in absence to challenge the policy no effective Order could be passed. 13. The policy of the Bank has not been challenged in the writ petition and in absence to challenge the policy no effective Order could be passed. 13. With regard to conduct of the petitioner, it is relevant to point out that Sri K.K. Gautam, Advocate, moved the application for recalling the Order dated 31.08.2006, which was dismissed on 18.07.2008, as the counsel could not succeed on merit and the same counsel namely Sri K.K. Gautam moved another application for recalling of Orders dated 31.08.2006 and 18.07.2008, which was rejected on 01.07.2009 for want of prosecution and thereafter new counsel Sri S.K. Dikshit filed the application for recall of Order dated 01.07.2009, which was rejected on 06.12.2013 on the ground that the application moved by the subsequent counsel is not maintainable and last application for recalling of Orders dated 31.08.2006, 18.07.2008, 01.07.2009 and 06.12.2013 was moved by another new counsel Sri Radhey Shyam Mishra under the heading of “Review”. 14. Moving application after application on the same issue, in the facts of the case, is nothing but abuse of process of law and such type of act of the litigant burdens the Court and affects the precious time of the Court, which can be used for disposal of cases of bonafide litigant. Allowing irresponsible, frivolous and malafide litigation to continue would be against principles to the effect that nobody should be permitted to abuse the process of Law and irresponsible, frivolous and malafide litigation should be weeded out at the earliest. 15. It is settled principle that “Review” is not maintainable by a counsel engaged subsequently and on this ground alone the review application under consideration is liable to be rejected/dismissed. 16. Another aspect of the case is that subsequent application on the same facts is impermissible under Chapter XXII, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, 1952 and keeping in view the facts of the case and spirit of the provision, the application under consideration is liable to be rejected. 17. Besides above, in the Application for Review of Orders dated 31.08.2006, 18.07.2008, 01.07.2009 and 06.12.2013, the petitioner/applicant failed to point out and establish that the writ petition survives and requires consideration on merits. Moreover, from the reasons aforesaid, it is apparent that no fruitful purpose would be served in reviving the writ petition. 18. 17. Besides above, in the Application for Review of Orders dated 31.08.2006, 18.07.2008, 01.07.2009 and 06.12.2013, the petitioner/applicant failed to point out and establish that the writ petition survives and requires consideration on merits. Moreover, from the reasons aforesaid, it is apparent that no fruitful purpose would be served in reviving the writ petition. 18. Keeping in view the facts and reasons mentioned hereinabove, in brief, this Court is of the view that the application for review of orders dated 31.08.2006, 18.07.2008, 01.07.2009 and 06.12.2013 preferred on 25.03.2014 deserves to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. Though a lot of valuable time of the Court was wasted, we refrain from imposing cost on the applicant.