A. Raghuvir, C. J. — Chandra Kanta Medhi, the writ petitioner in the . instant case, is by qualification a Mechanical Engineer. He is at present holding the post of Additional Chief Engineer, PWD (Mech) from December 31, 1984. The issues raised in the petition relate to the appointment to the post of Superintending Engineer. Gopal Chandra Das (respondent No. 2) is the petitioner's rival candidate to the post of Superintending Engineer. The claims of the two persons were considered under the Assam Engineering (Public Works Department) Service Rules, 1978 at first by a Selection Board, later by the State Government, the appointing authority and finally on appeal by G. C. Das, by the Assam Administrative Tribural. The orders passed by the three authorities are assailed in this writ petition by the rival candidates. The claims of these two rival candidates at first were considered on October 27, 1984 by the Selection Board under the Rules of 1978. The Board recommended Gopal Chandra Das to be appointed. The recommen­dation was considered on May 25, 1985 by the State Government and held C. K. Medhi be appointed, G. C. Das who thereupon filed an appeal. The Assam Administrative Tribunal the appellate authority reversed the decision of the Government and approved the recommendation of the Board dated October 27, 1984. Hence the instant petition by C. K. Medhi. The Tribunal in the impugned order on August 14, 1985 held the Government order was not in accordance with the 1978 Rules therefore set aside the order of the State Government, Later the Tribunal considered the character rolls, personal files, adverse remakes in the records, and representations of the two rival candidates and passed the following order.- “In the result, we partly allow the appeal, set aside impugned Government Notifications No. RBEB. 108/84/16 dated 11.1.85: No. CON. 1/84/Pt/Ul dated 29.5.85 and No. RBEB. 108/84/16 dated 11.1.85: No. CON. 1/84/Pt/Ul dated 29.5.85 and No. RBEB. 180/84/Pt/4 dated 31.12.84 and also direct that the Select List for promotion to the post of S.E. (Mech) as recommended by the Selection Board on 27.10.84 be approved finally under Rule 13(10) and the post of S.E. (Mech) now filled up through officiating promotion outside the Service Rules be filled up regularly on the basis of this Select List by promoting the appellant within a period of one month from the date of this order." The learned counsel for the petitioner at first assailed the order of the Tribunal on grounds of power and propriety. The contention raised is that the Tribunal had the undoubted power to set aside the order of the Government in appeal but had no power to consider claims and to have passed the impugned orders. Further the order of the Tribunal is not a proper order. We will consider first the question of powers of the Tribunal. The question of power needs to be determined under the Administrative Tribunals Act 13 of 1985 (the Act) which was promulgated on February 27,1985 and under the Assam Administrative Tribunal Regulations, 1977. The Regulation under Chapter V deals as respects hearing, adjournment and decision, production of documents etc., but the scope and procedure which are required to be considered by the Tribunal. The issue as to power turns on the interpretation of sections 8 and 9 of the Act of 1977, which reads: "8. Procedure before Tribunal. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Rules framed the Tribunal shall have power to regulate its owq procedure and for the constitution of Benches, if any, for the disposal of all matters arising out of the exercise of its powers under the provisions of this Act. (2) At least two of the members of the Tribunal will hear and pass orders on appeals preferred before the Tribunal. (3) The decision of the majority of the members present and hearing the matter shall be the decision of the Tribunal. Where the members are equally divided in their opinion, the appeal would be heard and decided by all the members and the decision arrived at by the majority opinion of all the members shall be the decision of the Tribunal. Where the members are equally divided in their opinion, the appeal would be heard and decided by all the members and the decision arrived at by the majority opinion of all the members shall be the decision of the Tribunal. (4) The Tribunal shall have power to confirm, modify or reverse the order against which the appeal is preferred or to remand the matter for a fresh decision by the competent authority passing the order in accordance with such directions, if any, as may be given by the Tribunal." "9. The Order of the Tribunal.- (1) (a) The older of the Tribunal passed in any appeal under the provisions of this Act shall be final, (b) Not with s(a ding anything contained in sub-section (l)(a) the Tribunal may, on the application of any of the panics, review its own decision or order in any case and may pass such order as it thinks fit: Provided that no such decision or order shall be reviewed unless notice has been given to the opposite parties to appear and to show cause, why such order or decision should not be reviewed: Provided further that an application for review under sub­section (1) (b) shall be made within thirty days from the date of decision or order of the Tribunal. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law no civil Court or other authority shall entertain any civil suit or other proceedings with respect to any of the matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or question in any form any order passed by the Tribunal in any appeal or review with respect to any matter when appeal could have preferred under provisions of this Act or with respect to any other matter which arises out of the exercise of powers under this Act. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, all suits or other proceedings in respect of any matter over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction and which are pending before any civil Court or other authority on the date of coming into force of this Act, shall stand transferred to the Tribunal and the civil Court or other authority before whom such a suit or proceeding is pending, shall transfer all relevant and connected papers and records to the Tribunal and thereupon the Tribunal shall decide the suits and proceeding in the same manner as if they were appeals preferred under the provisions of this Act. (4) The decision of the Tribunal shall be implemented within such reasonable time as may be specified by the Tribunal." It is seen under clause (4) of section 8 the Tribunal is empowered power to confirm, modify or reverse an order m an appeal. In that enumeration of powers the legislature did not empower the Tribunal to pass any order which it thinks just and proper or pass a proper order which the Tribunal considers expedient. The powers enumerated in clause (4) of section 8 to repeat are to confirm, modify, to reverse the order. If the subject is remitted there is the power to give fresh direction as the Tribunal may consider necessary on the facts of the case. Under clause (b) of sect ion-9, if there is a review application filed, it can review its decision and pass such order as it thinks fit. The words "as it thinks fit" in clause (b) does not enlarge the power to reverse, confirm, remand and pass appro­priate direction. These words mean in a review order the Tribunal can pass as it thinks fit. That is in the event of a review which is not an issue in this case, we have incidentally adverted to this aspect as such words are not set out in clause 4 of section 8 of the Act. We have not heard the learned counsel for the petitioner or the learned Govt. Advocate for the State of Assam or the counsel for the respondent No. 2 to argue that the Tribunal can pass any order as it thinks just and proper after reversing the order in appeal. We have not heard the learned counsel for the petitioner or the learned Govt. Advocate for the State of Assam or the counsel for the respondent No. 2 to argue that the Tribunal can pass any order as it thinks just and proper after reversing the order in appeal. In the instant case, the Tribunal reviewed the facts, considered the character rolls and personal files touching on every aspect of the two candidates and approved the recommendation by the Board. The Tribunal stated in para 16: "We, therefore, hold that the Selection Board's preference for the appellant over respondent No. 3 in the matter of promotion to the rank of S. E. (Tech ) was fully justified though it failed to record its reasons in writings." The Tribunal supplemented what the Selection Board had defaulted and earlier in para 13, the Tribunal stated : "Normally, we would have left this assessment to the Selection Board. But as that Board has not specifically recorded its reasons in writing, as required by Rule 13(5), while twice preferring the appellant for promotion as S. E. over respondent No. 3, who is undoub­tedly senior to the appellant ; as we are unable to uphold the Governor's deviation from the Selection Board's Select List, for reasons given herein below ; and as both the concerned candidates did appear before us and were given due hearing, we consider it necessary and appropriate, as the statutory appellate authority, to ourselves examine their relative merit and suitability afresh." From the above extracts ,it is apparent that the Tribunal considered the entire subject matter, approved the decision of the Selection Board and passed an order which the Tribunal considered to be just and proper order. The Tribunal after reversing the order of the State Government should have transmitted the record to the Government. Therefore the impugned order is not sustainable in law. In view of this conclusion it is not necessary to delve into the propriety aspect of the impugned order. In Assam Engineering (Public Works Department) Service Rules, 1978 power of Selection Board and that of the Government are specified in clause (5) and (6) of Rule 13 respectively. The test for the promotion upto the post of Superintending Engineer as per clause 4 of Rule 13 is merit and suitability and for the promotion post above the rank of S.E. is on merit cum-seniority. The test for the promotion upto the post of Superintending Engineer as per clause 4 of Rule 13 is merit and suitability and for the promotion post above the rank of S.E. is on merit cum-seniority. Rule 13 reads as under: "13. General procedure for promotion - (1) Before the end of each year, the Government shall make an assessment of the likely number of vacancies to be filled up by promotion in the next year in each cadre. 2) The Appointing Authority shall then furnish the Selection Board the following documents and information with regard to as officers may in order of seniority as 4 times the number of vacancies, as assessed under sub-rule (1). a) information about the number of vacancies ; b)list of officers in order of seniurity,e1igible for promotion (separate lists for promotion to different cadres shall be furnished) indicating the cadre to which the case of promotion is to be considered ; c) character rolls and personal files of the officers listed, together with all papers showing that any adverse remarks recorded in the character rolls has been duly communicated to the person concerned and any representation against such adverse remark has been disposed of after due consideration. d) detailed about reservation in case of promotion to Class II of the service and about carry forward of vacancies as provided under sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 ; and e) any other documents and information as may be considered necessary by the Appointing Authority or required by the Board. 3) The Appointing Authority shall simultaneously request the Selection Board to recommend within one month a list of officers found suitable for promotion in order of preference, in respect of promotion to each of the cadres in which recruitment is to he made by promotion. 4) Promotions upto the rank of Superintending Engineer on merit and suitability with due regard to the seniority and promotions above the rank of Superintending Engineer on merit-cum-seniority. 5) The Selection Board, after examination of the documents and information furnished by tie Appointing Authority shall recommend to the Appointing Authority a select fist of officers about double the probable number of vacancies, in order of preference, found suitable for promotion. 5) The Selection Board, after examination of the documents and information furnished by tie Appointing Authority shall recommend to the Appointing Authority a select fist of officers about double the probable number of vacancies, in order of preference, found suitable for promotion. In case the Board does not Consider an officer suitable for promotion according to seniority, it shall record the reasons thereof in writing and forward to the Appointing Authority together with the select list. 6) The Appointing Authority shall consider the select list prepared by the Board along with the character rolls and personal files of the employees and approve the list unless it considers, any change necessary. If the Appointing Authority considers it necessary to make any change in the list received from the Board, h2 shall inform the Board, of the changes proposed and after taking into account the comments, if any, of the Board may approve the list finally with such modification, if any, as may, in his opinion be just and proper: Provided that it shall not be necessary for the Appointing Autho­rity to consider the list submitted by the Board recommending candidates for promotion under Rule J1. This list shall be forwarded by the Appointing Authority to the Commission as provided under Rule 14(1). 7) The inclusion of a candidate's name in a select list shall confer no right to promotion unless the Appointing Authority is satisfied after such enquiry as may be considered necessary that a candidate is suitable for promotion. 8) The select list shall remain valid for 12 months from the date of approval by the Commission in case of Assistant Engineers and for 12 months from the date of approval by the Selection Board in other cases. 9) The promotion shall be in accordance with the list finally approved by the Appointing Authority. 10) The select list as finally approved shall be published by the Appointing Authority in the Assam Gazette within 15 days from the date of approval : Provided that Government can remove any name from the select list in case of misconduct etc. coming to the notice of the Government and that no claim for promotion can be made on the basis of select list.” The Selection Board considered the case of the petitioner and found not suitable. coming to the notice of the Government and that no claim for promotion can be made on the basis of select list.” The Selection Board considered the case of the petitioner and found not suitable. The Board did not record reasons as required in clause (V of Rule 13 as a duty cast to set out as to why the petitioner is not suitable for promotion. The petitioner argued that such a top sided consideration without following the statutory requirements, is no consideration in law and is void and non est. To support this contention the learned counsel referred to three cases of the Supreme Court in this regard : AIR 1974 SC 87 (Union of India vs. M. L. Capoor) which was followed in the latter case in (1946) 4 SCC 6i7 (Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Ravinder Kr. Sharma), which was again reaffirmed in (1988) 2 SCC 242 (UPSC vs. Hiranyalal Dev). From the ratio of the above decisions the requirement to record reasons is manda­tory and violation of such a mandatory clause the order ceases to have any legal validity. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 argued that when any "change" is necessary in the select list prepared by the Board Under clause 6, the State Government should inform the Board of 'proposed' changes and obtain comments of the Board thereafter pass such order which in their opinion is just and proper. These infirmities are pointed out by the learned counsel who appeared for the rival candidates as respects the order of the Selection1 Board and that of the State Government. The criticism leveled against the orders of the two authorities is more than justified. In the result, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the subject matter to the State Government with the direction that the State Government to call for written reasons in clause (5) of Rule 13 and later follow the procedure laid down in clause (6) of Rule 13 and pass order in accordance with law. This writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs.