JUDGMENT G.C Bharuka, J. The present review application is directed against an order dated 20th September, 1989 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6506 of 1989 by which the writ application filed by the petitioner was dismissed in limine. 2. The short facts, which are not in dispute, are as follows. The petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the Middle School, Devaria Kothi, Anchal Paru, in the District of Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘School') on 25.3.1974. He joined his service on 1.4.1974. The school was an aided private school run by a Managing Committee. Subsequently this school was taken over by the Government on 26.1.1975 pursuant to the provisions contained in the Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1976. As is evident from Memo no. 166 dated 10th April, 1975 (Annexure 4) written by the then District Superintendent of Education to the Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, at the time of taking over of the school there were 15 teachers. Out of whom five were working on sanctioned posts and the remaining ten were acting on unsanctioned posts and drawing the salary as untrained metric teachers. But the names of the said ten untrained teachers were not included in the list of the teachers of the school on two grounds; namely, (a) they were untrained metric teachers and (b) they had been working on unsanctioned posts. Two of the said teachers, namely, Smt. Pratibha Singh and another challenged the action of the Government in a writ application before this Court. Their case is reported in 1988 PLJR 646 . This Court allowed the writ application and directed that the said two teachers should be treated as teachers since the date of taking over of the school. After the said decision five more teachers, namely, Parmeshwar Sah and ors. of the said school filed C.W.J.C. No. 4450 of 1989 which was disposed of on 31.10.1990. A Bench of this Court, keeping in view the decision in the Smt. Partibha Singh's case as also on a concession by the Advocate General which was made after due consultation with the Commissioner of Education, passed the following order : "The petitioners be treated as teachers of the said school and they will get their salary from the date they join the school." Thus out of ten teachers similarly situated seven has already been granted desired relief. 3. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that keeping in view the aforesaid facts and the decision and orders passed by this Court in case of other teachers situated similar to the petitioner, the dismissal of his writ application in limine i.e. even without assigning any reason is on the face of it, violative of equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. Basically this is the ground on which review has been sought in this case. 4. Mr. Rafat Alam appearing for the State, has opposed the application on the ground that though the facts, as stated on behalf of the petitioner may be correct but since there is no mistake apparent on the face of the record, therefore, this Court should not review its order as it would set a wrong precedent. 5. I am conscious that so far as the power of substantive review is concerned, it should be exercised rarely and sparingly and that too normally for rectifying mistakes apparent on the face of the record. But in a given case, the High Court has the jurisdiction to exercise its review jurisdiction if it is so warranted in order to meet the needs of justice. To review its orders, the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not circumscribed by any statutory limitation. The Supreme Court in the case of Sheodeo Singh and others v. State of Punjab has held that "There is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from" exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and pulbable errors committed by it". 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles I am clearly of the view that the order of in limine dismissal passed by this Court needs to be reviewed because under the facts and the circumstances stated above, refusal of relief to the petitioner would amount to negation of constitutional mandate of equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. Seven of the ten teachers of the category to which the petitioner belongs has already been granted relief by this Court for one or the other reasons. Seven of the ten teachers of the category to which the petitioner belongs has already been granted relief by this Court for one or the other reasons. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner should be absorbed and treated as the teacher of the school in question from the date he joins the school and since then he will be treated as in Government service as a teacher and will be entitled to get salary and other benefits in that capacity. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from his client has agreed that the petitioner will neither claim nor will be entitled to any salary or other benefits for the period prior to his joining pursuant to this order. 7. The review application is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. B. N. Sinha, J. - I agree.