Judgment S. K. Singh, J. 1. The present application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order of respondent no.1 dated 14 9 81, by which he has granted permission to Respondent no.2, the Sub-divisional Officer, to review the order of bis predecessor, which is incorporated as Annexure-1. 2. The short facts leading to the present application is that the petitioner was appointed as a Chowkidar of Mouza Jetang Khaksba within the police station of Pakuria appertaining to beat No.3/16 by an order of the then Subdivisional Officer of Pakur dated 28 3.74 passed in Chaukidari Seva case no.5 of 1973-74. It has further been stated that after the appointment was made, he assumed charge of the office and was also delivered possession of Jagir land, in pursuance to the order of the Cbaukidari Officer and since then the petitioner has been discharging his duty on the said post with the satisfaction of all concerned. Subsequently the father of Respondent no.4 along with his brother filed an application before the Sub-divisional Officer stating therein that as his father was the chowkidar, as such, they should have been appointed as chowkidar in place of the present petitioner. Respondent No 3 claimed his right on the post of chowkidar in view of the fact that his grandfather was the previous chowkidar and the said post was hereditary. In that view of the matter, Respondent no.3 should have been appointed as Chowkidar but by suppressing these facts and after obtaining a collusive report, the petitioner got himself appointed as chowkidar. The application of Respondent no.4 was dismissed by the S. D. O. Subsequently, he again moved before the S. D O. but his prayer was not allowed, Ultimately, by order dated 5.5 1977, the Subdivisional Officer, Pakur, held that the permission of the Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Parganas under Sec.60 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act (Settlement Provisions) Act, 1949, to review his earlier order appointing the petitioner as Jagir holder chowkidar should be obtained. The said order of the S. D. O. has been annexed as annexure-B to the counter-affidavit filed by the private respondent. Subsequently, by Annexure-1 by order dated 14 9 81, the Deputy Commissioner, santhal Parganas was pleased to grant permission to the S. D. O. Pakur to review his earlier order. The said order of the S. D. O. has been annexed as annexure-B to the counter-affidavit filed by the private respondent. Subsequently, by Annexure-1 by order dated 14 9 81, the Deputy Commissioner, santhal Parganas was pleased to grant permission to the S. D. O. Pakur to review his earlier order. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present application. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Parganas dated 14.9.81, as contained in Annexure-1. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Sec.60 of the Act, the S. D. O. could have only made clerical correction in his earlier order of the order of his predecessor and in case some substantial materials would have been left on oversight, he could have made that correction after obtaining the permission of the Deputy Commissioner. According to him, the ground on which ths Deputy Commissioner has granted permission cannot be taken as a ground, which has been left due to over-sight. It relates to the private respondent being the legal heirs of the previous chowkidar. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as has already been decided by this Court in Santhal Parganas Act that in case of appointment of Jagir hereditary cannot be taken into consideration. According to him, the appointment of the petitioner has been done after following the due procedure and, as such, the order as contained in Annexure-1 should be quashed. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent, on the other hand, has relied upon Sec.60 of the Act itself and he has stated that the S. D O. in case of clerical error or other error, manifestly the result of oversight, is entitled to correct the same and in case the order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner or the Subdivisional Officer, the permission of the Deputy Commissioner has to be obtained before reviewing the same. In the present case, the Subdivisional Officer was satisfied that there was an error in the earlier order and by order dated 5.5.77, as contained in annexure-B, he asked for permission of the Deputy Commissioner to review his earlier order and the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 14.9.81, as contained in Annexure-1, has been pleased to grant him the said permission. According to him, the appointment of the petitioner has been made after concealing material facts and obtaining the collusive report from the Officer-in-charge. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the counter-affidavit filed by the private respondent as well as the relevant provisions cited by the learned counsel. 6. Section 60 of the Act clearly envisages that in case an error has been committed in passing of order as result of [oversight, the S. D O. can review his earlier order after obtaining permission of the Deputy Commissioner. In the present case the same has been done. In that view of the matter, 1 do not want to interfere with the order dated 14.9.81 passed by the Deputy Commissioner for granting the said permission. 7. Without expressing my opinion on the disputed question of facts, i am satisfied that the S D O. was within his jurisdiction in seeking the permission of the Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Parganas for reviewing his earlier order and the Deputy Commissioner has also acted under the law in granting the same. As the matter has to be considered afresh by the S D. O. , i direct him to give notice to the parties and after hearing them and considering the matter in accordance with law, the S D. O. will pass a fresh order. 8. With the observation and direction as given above, this writ application is, accordingly, disposed of, but there will be no order as to costs. Application Disposed.