ORDER 1) REVIEW PETITION(CIVIL)NO. OF 2020(0 P. N0.13152 OF 2020) IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 936 of 2018 1. Application seeking permission for oral hearing of Review Petition is rejected. 2. Delay in preferring Review Petition is condoned. 3. This Petition has been filed by two of the original petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil)No.936 of 2018. 4. All the submissions advanced in said Writ Petition and connected matters were dealt with in detail by this Court in its Judgment dated 29.04.2020. 5. We have gone through the Review Petition and do not find any error apparent on record to justify interference in the Review Jurisdiction. 6. This Review Petition is dismissed. 2) REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL)NO. OF 2020 f@ OF D.NO. 12402 OF 2020) IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 897 OF 2019. 7. Delay in preferring Review Petition is condoned. 8. This Review Petition is preferred by the Petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil)No. 897 of 2019 who were seeking benefit of ad hoc officiating service put in by promotees as Fast Track Court Judges. The issue was considered in detail by this Court in its Judgment dated 29.04.2020. 9. We have gone through the Review Petition and do not find any substance in the submissions raised in the petition. 10. This Review Petition is dismissed. 3) REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL)NO. OF 2020 (& OF D.NO. 11770 OF 2020) IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 1471 OF 2018. 11. Application for advancing oral arguments is rejected. 12. This Review Petition is filed by the Association. The submissions raised on behalf of the Association were dealt with in detail by this Court in its Judgment dated 29.04.2020. 13. The grounds taken in the Review Petition do not make out any error apparent on record to call for interference in Review Jurisdiction. 14. This Review Petition is dismissed. 4)REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL)NO. OF 2020(@ D.NO. 11925 OF 2020)IN WRIT PETITION (CIVID No. 464 OF 2019 15. Delay in preferring Review Petition is condoned. 16. This Review Petition is preferred by the Petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil)No. 464 of 2019, which sought benefit of ad hoc/officiating service put in by promotees as Fast Track Court Judges. All the submissions in that behalf were dealt with in detail by this Court in its Judgment dated 29.04.2020. 17. Delay in preferring Review Petition is condoned. 16. This Review Petition is preferred by the Petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil)No. 464 of 2019, which sought benefit of ad hoc/officiating service put in by promotees as Fast Track Court Judges. All the submissions in that behalf were dealt with in detail by this Court in its Judgment dated 29.04.2020. 17. We have gone through the contents of the Review Petition and do not find any error apparent on record to justify interference in Review Jurisdiction. 18. This Review Petition is dismissed. 5)REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL)NO. OF 2020(0 P. NO. 12403 OF 2020)IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 899 OF 2019 19. Delay in preferring Review Petition is condoned. 20. This Review Petition is preferred by the Petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil)No. 899 of 2019, which sought benefit of ad hoc/officiating service put in by promotees who were promoted as Fast Track Court Judges. All the submissions in that behalf were dealt with in detail by this Court in its Judgment dated 29.04.2020. 21. We have gone through the contents of the Review Petition and do not find any error apparent on record to justify interference in Review Jurisdiction. 22. This Review Petition is dismissed. 6) REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL)NO. OF 2020(0 P. NO. 13292 OF 2020)IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 498 OF 2019 23. Application for oral hearing is rejected. 24. Delay in preferring Review Petition is condoned. 25. This Review Petition is filed by some of the petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil)No.498 of 2019, who were successful in LCE. 26. Though the basic submissions based on applicability of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, was not accepted, a limited relief was given in conclusion (a) in para 44. 27. We have gone through the contents of the Review Petition and do not find any error apparent on record to justify to take a different view in the matter. 28. This Review Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 7)REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL)NO.___________OF 2020(0 P. NO.13327 OF 2020UN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 610 OF 2020(0 D.NO. 13252 OF 2019) 29. Application for oral hearing of Review Petition is rejected. 30. Delay in preferring Review Petition is condoned. 31. This Review Petition is filed by some of the petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil)No. 610 of 2020 (@ D.NO. 13252 OF 2019), who were successful in LCE. 32. 610 OF 2020(0 D.NO. 13252 OF 2019) 29. Application for oral hearing of Review Petition is rejected. 30. Delay in preferring Review Petition is condoned. 31. This Review Petition is filed by some of the petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil)No. 610 of 2020 (@ D.NO. 13252 OF 2019), who were successful in LCE. 32. Though the basic submissions based on applicability of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, was not accepted, a limited relief was given in conclusion (a) in para 44. 33. We have gone through the contents of the Review Petition and do not find any error apparent on record to justify to take a different view in the matter. 34. This Review Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 8)REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL)NO. OF 2020((a) P. NO. 15155 OF 2020)IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 967 OF 2018 35. Application seeking permission for oral hearing of Review Petition is rejected. 36. Delay in preferring Review Petition is condoned. 37. This Petition is filed by some of the Petitioners from Writ Petition (Civil)No. 967 of 2018 i.e., Direct Recruits submitting that the appointments made after Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 ought to be in accordance with the cyclic orders. All the relevant submissions in that behalf were dealt with in detail by this Court in its Judgment dated 29.04.2020. 38. We have gone through the contents of the Review Petition and do not find any error apparent on record to justify to take a different view in the matter. 39. This Review Petition is, therefore, dismissed.