This application for review of the judgment and order dated 13.10.93 passed in Civil Rule No. 2778 of 1992 has been preferred by the State of Assam on the ground that the finding of the Court was wrong in holding that the appointment made by Government was not made in accordance with the guidelines, that the propriety and legality of the guidelines were not challenged in the writ petition and that guidelines do not provide for selection of stipendary teachers on merit basis. 2. By the judgment and order this Court quashed the impugned select list Annexure 2 to the writ petition. 3. In any case a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby a judgment is reheard and corrected. The scope of review is very restricted, a judgment can be reviewed only if the applicant can establish that-(1) disco­very of new and important evidence/matter which could not be produced at the time of hearing, (2) error apparent on the face of the record, and (3) for any other sufficient reason. In a catena of decisions the Apex Court held that though amended Code of CPC barred review under Article 226 of the Constitution, in appropriate case Court can do so, but in a very restricted and limited manner. In that view of the matter the spirit of Order 47 has to be followed as guideline to review a judgment/order passed by High Court in its writ jurisdiction. 4. Admittedly State did not prefer appeal though appeal can be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. There was delay of about one month but the explanation for delay given by the State has been accepted and I decide to hear the application for review. 5. This review application preferred by the State seems to be an appeal in disguise. State has raised a ground, which seems to be a law point, that guidelines in selection of stipendary teachers do not provide for selection on merit basis. Ground III of the application for review states that : "allegation of appointments being made without recourse to selection on merit holds no water, inasmuch as, the impugned guidelines of the Government do not provide for selection on merit basis..." 6. Admittedly the stipendary teachers are appointed as Assistant Teacher in provincialised LP schools. Ground III of the application for review states that : "allegation of appointments being made without recourse to selection on merit holds no water, inasmuch as, the impugned guidelines of the Government do not provide for selection on merit basis..." 6. Admittedly the stipendary teachers are appointed as Assistant Teacher in provincialised LP schools. Minimum qualification for appointment/selection has been provided in Rule 3 (iii) of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977. Rule 3 of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 made under section 27 of the Assam Elemen­tary Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1974 provides as follows : "3. (v) Selection Committee. There shall be Selection Committee in each educational Sub-Division to be constituted by the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board for Elementary Education. The Chairman of the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board for Elementary Education and the DI of Schools shall be the Chairman and Secretary of the Selection Committee respectively. (vi) On receipt of applications, the Selection Committee shall scruti­nise the mark sheets and other necessary testimonials of the candidates and prepare a list of candidates for interview by the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee shall then finalise the list of successful candidates in order of merit after interview and shall put up the list before the Board for approval. While approving the list, the Board shall be guided by the declared policies of the Government and instructions issued by the Government from time to time. After approval of the list by the Board the same shall be sent to the Director of Elementary Education for his final approval." (underline supplemented) 7. In course of argument an attempt was made to show that appointment of stipendary teachers does not come to the purview of the Rule as their appointments are made as a policy matter to provide employment to a separate section of unemployed persons as a welfare measure. 8. Apparently appointments, made under the head of stipendary teacher has to be guided by certain rules and conditions. The appointment under this category has to fulfil some conditions for their regularisation of the post. After appointment, a candidate have to undergo 'Teachers Training' (Basic Training). 8. Apparently appointments, made under the head of stipendary teacher has to be guided by certain rules and conditions. The appointment under this category has to fulfil some conditions for their regularisation of the post. After appointment, a candidate have to undergo 'Teachers Training' (Basic Training). Admittedly appointment made to stipendary teachers based on merit-minimum qualification being matriculate and such appointment must be on merit basis and after selection on merit categorisation under the guidelines be made and such stipendary candidates cannot be selected by means of pick and choose method. In any Government appointment, Government must follow the Rules/Regulation and no guideline or policy of the Government can override the statutory provisions of law/Rules. Scheme of appointment of stipendary teachers in primary schools cannot go beyond the Rules made for appointment of primary school teachers and if such appointment is challen­ged in the Court, the Court can review such applicability of policy matter and if found the guidelines/policy matter override the statutory provisions of law can set aside such appointment. In Civil Rule No. 2778 of 1992 the selection procedure for selection of the stipendary teacher, followed by the Selection Advisory Board, was found illegal as the guideline was not followed and the selection was made by the members of the Selection Committee individually. Therefore the said select list has been set aside/quashed by this Court. Any deviation of Government from statutory rules in appointment whether gene­ral or in stipendary teacher is liable to be scrutinised by the Court and if the deviation from statutes/rules is established such action is liable to be quashed. 9. The argument advanced by the State that guideline was not impu­gned is a misrepresentation and misconceived as the petitioner's allegation in the writ petition was that the selection of candidates was not made on the basis of the guidelines who fall in the category of sons and daughters of •retired teachers. 10. Attempt has been made by the learned counsel for the State that as policy matter the scheme of appointment of stipendary teachers has been adopted by the Government to accommodate the persons who cannot come to the general appointment schema of the LP School teachers and being a policy matter the Court cannot interfere with it. 10. Attempt has been made by the learned counsel for the State that as policy matter the scheme of appointment of stipendary teachers has been adopted by the Government to accommodate the persons who cannot come to the general appointment schema of the LP School teachers and being a policy matter the Court cannot interfere with it. This argument does not hold good as under Rule 3 (ii) of the Rules, 1977, the age limit for appoint­ment shall be, as prescribed by the Government and that upper age limit shall be relaxed in favour of SC and STs as per rules made by Government. The Rules also do not prescribe for raising of age to any other candidate* others than SC and ST candidates. In that case if the Government honestly intends to appoint person under the scheme of appointment of stipendary teacher as a policy matter Government must frame a set of rules for such appointment. In absence of any rule there is possibility of arbitrariness and unguided discretion in the appointment and particularly when State fund is involved Court has to interfere with it. The Apex Court in Bangalore Medical Trust vs. BS Muddappa & others (19911 4 SCC 541 observed that in a democratic set up, the people or community being sovereign, the exercise of decision must be guided by the internal philosophy that the exercise of dis­cretion is accountable for any action. It is to be tested on anvil of rule of law and fairness of justice particularly if competing interests of members of society is involved. The view adopted by the Court in the original judgment is a possible view having regard to the record (Annexures). The Government did not produce record to counter the contention of the writ petition, which is apparent on the proceedings of the writ petition. In that view of the matter it is difficult to hold that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. 11. Applicant Government failed to establish that there is error in the face of the record or for any other reason or any illegality to convince the Court to review its judgment and order. 12. In the result the review application to review the judgment has failed and accordingly it is rejected.