A. K. Patnaik, J- This is a proceeding for review of the judgment and order delivered by us on 4.9.95 in Writ Appeal No. 142 of 1993. 2. The facts briefly are that the review applicant has been working as Superintending Engineer in the Department of Public Health Engineering, Govt. of Nagaland and holds a degree in Civil Engineering. The respondent No. 3 was also working as a Superintending Engineer in the said department and holds a Diploma in Engineering and was promoted to the post of Additional Chief Engineering subject to regularisation by the Departmental Promotion Committee by a notifica­tion dated 26.3.91 issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Department of Public Health Engineering. The review applicant as writ petitioner challenged the said notification dated 26.3.91 in Civil Rule No. 119(K)1992 filed before the Kohima Bench of this Court on the ground that the respondent No.3 was only a Diploma holder and did not hold a degree in Engineering which was the qualification prescribed under the Nagaland Engineering Service Rules, 1984, (for short 'the 1984 Rules') for appointment to the post of Additional Chief Engineer. The learned Single Judge of the Kohima Bench after hearing the parties held in his judgment and order dated 16.7.93 that the 1984 Rules were abundantly clear that the post of Additional Chief Engineer was to be filled up 100% by degree holders and that the 1984 Rules which were framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution were statutory rules and could not be by passed by executive orders. By the said judgment and order, the learned Single Judge also quashed the order of promotion of respondent No.3 to the post of Additional Chief Engineer contained in the notification dated 26.3.91 and allowed the writ petition, Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the Kohima Bench in Civil Rule No. 119(K) 1992, the State-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Writ Appeal No.142 of 1993. The said writ appeal was taken up for hearing by this Bench on 4.9.95 when the counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the counsel for the respondent No.3 were present but the counsel for the review applicant who was the respondent No. 1 in the said writ appeal was not present. At the said hearing of the writ appeal. Mr. 1 and 2 and the counsel for the respondent No.3 were present but the counsel for the review applicant who was the respondent No. 1 in the said writ appeal was not present. At the said hearing of the writ appeal. Mr. DK Mishra, learned counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the appellants in the said writ appeal, contended, inter alia, that the 1984 Rules as originally framed and in particular column 4 against serial 2 in Schedule VI of the said Rules expressly provided that even those with exceptional meritorious service from amongst the Superintending Engineers who were not degree holders could be promoted to the post of Additional Chief Engineer; but some how in the Gazette notification dated 22,9.84 in which the 1984 Rules were notified, the words "cases of exceptionally meritorious service'' came to be deleted and: as a result, a confusion arose with regard to the exact words used in Schedule VI of the 1984 Rules and the learned Single Judge interpreted the 1984 Rules as notified in the Gazette and held that under Schedule VI to the 1984 Rules only degree holders or equivalent were qualified to be promoted to the post of Additional Chief Engineer. Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 who was respondent No.2 in the said writ appeal, supported the aforesaid contention of Mr. DK Mishra, considering the fact that the promotion of respondent N o .2 (respondent No. 3 in the writ appeal) was subject to regularisation by the Departmental Promotion Committee, we disposed of the writ appeal by our judgment and order dated 4.9.95 with a direction that the Departmental Promotion Committee as welt as the Govt. would examine as to what were the exact words used in Schedule VI as originally framed and decide the question of eligibility of respondent No. 3 (respondent No.2 in the writ appeal) as well as the review applicant (respondent No. 1 in the writ appeal) and other Superintending Engineers for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Engineers besides their suitability for promotion to the said post and that the aforesaid consideration would be completed within six months from the date of judgment. Mr. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned counsel appearing for the review applicant, submitted that the view taken by us in our aforesaid judgment in the writ appeal suffers from palpable error apparent on the face of the records inasmuch as a plain reading of the relevant columns of the 1984 Rules as originally framed on which reliance has been placed by the State-respondents and the 1984 Rules as notified in the Gazette clearly show that 100% of the vacancies in the post of Additional Chief Engineer are to be filled up from amongst the candidates who have degree in the concerned Engineering Branch of recognised University and that Diploma holders are not qualified to be appointed to the post of Additional Chief Engineer. He argued that had this been brought to the notice of this Bench at the time of hearing on 4.9.95, this Court would have taken an entirely different view and upheld the judgment and order dated 16.7.93 in Civil RuleNo.U9(K)/ 92 that the respondent No.3 who was only a Diploma holder and did not hold a degree was not eligible to be appointed to the post of Additional Chief Engineer and that his promotion and appointment to the post of Additional Chief Engineer was liable to be quashed. Mr. Hansaria relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Shivdeo Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909 , as well as in the case of State of Gujrat vs. Sardarbegum & others, AIR 1976 SC 1695 , in support of his submission that a palpable and patent error can and should be corrected by the High Court even suo motu to prevent miscarriage of justice. He further pointed out by referring to the averments in the review application that on receipt of the notice issued by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 142 of 1993, the review applicant entered appearance in the said writ appeal through his counsel Shri AK Das and Shri BN Samia, Advocates, but on 4.9.95 when the writ appeal was taken up for hearing, Shri AK Das did not appear before the Court as he missed the item in the daily cause list dated 4.9.95: and Shri BN Sarma was a counsel practicing at Kohima Bench was not available at Guwahati where the writ appeal was heard. According to Mr. According to Mr. Hansaria, there was thus “sufficient cause" within the meaning of Order 47, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, for this Court to entertain this application for review of the judgment and order dated 4.9.95 in Writ Appeal No. 142 of 1993. he relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq & another vs. Munshilal & another, AIR 1981 SC 1401 , in which the Apex Court has taken a view that in the present adversary legal system where a party has selected his Advocate, briefed him and paid his fee, he can remain supremely confident that his lawyer will look after his interest and such an innocent party who has done everything in his power and expected of him, should not suffer for the inaction of his counsel. Mr. Hansaria also cited a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shangrilla Food Products Ltd & another vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & another, (1996) 5 SCC 54 , for the proposition that the High Court can in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, pass appropriate orders to do complete and substantial justice. 5. Mr. DK Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on the other hand, submitted that a contempt petition being COP (C) No.520 of 1996 was filed by the review applicant complaining that the directions of this Bench in the judgment and order dated 4.9.95 had not been complied with and thereafter the review applicant filed Misc Case No. 114 of 1996 for direction to the State-respondents to comply with the judgment and order dated 4.9.95 in Writ Appeal No. 142 of 1993 and that the State-respondents have in fact complied with the said directions and found the respondent No. 3 to be eligible to be promoted to the post of Additional Chief Engineer. He also produced a copy of the notification dated 26.2.97 to show that the Governor of Nagaland in exercise of his powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution has amended the 1984 Rules by inserting under column 4 of Schedule VI in the 1984 Rules the clause "cases of exceptionally meritorious service". He also produced before us a copy of the notification dated 18.7.97 of the Govt. of Nagaland. He also produced before us a copy of the notification dated 18.7.97 of the Govt. of Nagaland. Public Health Engineering Department, whereby the Governor has regularised the officiating promotion of the respondent No.3 in the grade of Additional Chief Engineer (PHE) Class 1 Gazetted with effect from 9th June, 1997 (FN). According to Mr. Mishra, in view of these developments, the review applicant cannot now make a prayer before this Court to review the judgment and order dated 4.9.95 passed by this Bench in Writ Appeal No. 142 of 1993. 6. Mr. NM Lahiri learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, contended that the grounds on which review of the judgment and order dated 4.9.95 in Writ Appeal No. 142 of 1993 is sought by the review applicant arc not good grounds for review and that the remedy of the applicant, if any. is to file a separate writ petition. He relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170 , in which it has been held that a review petition can be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and an error apparent on the face of the record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. 1. Schedule VI to the 1984 Rules is extracted here in below : (Refer to Rule Schedure VI 7 of the Nagaland Engineering Service Rules 1984 (Class I and II) SI No Grade /Cadre Source of recruitment and under rules recruitment percentage of vacancies to be filed in a year By departmental promotion by direct as prescribed under rules recruitment Minimum length of continuous service required toNnext higher grade in the immediate lower grade for promotion toNnext higher grade Technical/ Academic qualification for direct / recruitment Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2.. Chief engg Addl Chief Engineer. 100% 100% Case of exceptionally mertitorious service A degree in the concerned Engineering Branch of recognized University or Certificate A&B of the associate Membership Exam Of Institute Of Engg. 3. 4. Soperintending Engg. Exec. Engineer 90% 75% 10% 25% 7Yrs for Col-3 10Yrs for Col-4 A Decree for Exec. Chief engg Addl Chief Engineer. 100% 100% Case of exceptionally mertitorious service A degree in the concerned Engineering Branch of recognized University or Certificate A&B of the associate Membership Exam Of Institute Of Engg. 3. 4. Soperintending Engg. Exec. Engineer 90% 75% 10% 25% 7Yrs for Col-3 10Yrs for Col-4 A Decree for Exec. Engg or a Dip. In Civil Engg/Machanical/Electrical/PHE/LCE/LE/IME/LHE or Equiliant Qualification Recognised By Board of Technical Education (India) 5. Asstt. Engineer/Sub Divisional Officers Direct 60% 35% 5% 7 Yrs for Col-4 12 Yrs for Col-5 A Degree in Civil Engg or its Equiliant qualification of a Recognised University N.B : All the vacancies of Assistant Engineers in the Architectural Wing shall be filled up by the direct recruitment from among candidates possessing a degree in Architecture of a recognised University or other equivalent or other equivalent qualification included in the schedule to the Architects Act, 1972. It appears from a mere glance at the entries against serial Nos,3, 4 and 5 in Schedule VI of the 1984 Rules as ordinarily framed on which reliance has been placed by the State-respondents that whereas in the post of Superintending Engineer. Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer/Sub Divisional Officer, certain percentage of vacancies is to be filled up by degree holders or equivalent and the remaining percentage is to be filled up from amongst the Diploma holders or equivalent; in the cases of Chief Engineer and Additional Chief Engineer 100% of the vacancies is to be filled up degree holders or equivalent. It is also evident from the entries under column 9 against serial Nos.l and 2 of Schedule VI of the 1984 Rules that a degree in the concerned Engineering Branch of recognised University or certificate of having passed section A and B of the Associate Membership Examination of Institution of Engineers is the Technical/Academic qualification required for direct recruitment to the post of Additional Chief Engineer. It is thus abundantly clear from the bare provisions of the 1984 Rules, as originally framed, that no percentage of the vacancies was to be filled up by a Diploma holder or equivalent. In the 1984 Rules, as originally framed, however, the expression "cases of exceptionally meritorius service" found place. It is thus abundantly clear from the bare provisions of the 1984 Rules, as originally framed, that no percentage of the vacancies was to be filled up by a Diploma holder or equivalent. In the 1984 Rules, as originally framed, however, the expression "cases of exceptionally meritorius service" found place. But this expression did not alter in any way the position under the 1984 Rules in view of the clear provision under column 3 and 9 that 100% of the vacancies in the posts of Additional Chief Engineer was to be filled up from the degree holders or equivalent and that the qualification required was a degree in the concerned Engineering Branch of recognised University or equivalent for appointment to the post of Additional Chief Engineer. Also the addition of the said expression in the 1984 Rules by notification dated 26.2.97 to which reference has been made by Mr. DK Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents, does not make any difference to the said position under the 1984 Rules so long as there is no change in the provisions that 100% of the vacancies in the posts of Additional Chief Engineer is to be filled up from amongst the degree holders or equivalent and that only a person who holds a degree in Engineering or equivalent is qualified to hold the post of Additional Chief Engineer, By notification dated 26.2.97 no amendment has been made in columns 3 and 9 against the post of Additional Chief Engineer under which 100% of the vacancies in the posts of Additional Chief Engineer is to be filled up from amongst the degree holders or equivalent and the qualification for appointment to the post of Additional Chief Engineer is a degree or equivalent. There cannot therefore be two views on the point that under the 1984 Rules as originally framed before its publication in the Gazette and as amended by the notification dated 26.2.97 that 100% posts of Additional Chief Engineer are to be filled up by persons who are degree holders or equivalent and that a person who does not have a degree or equivalent in the concerned branch of Engineering is not qualified to be appointed or promoted to be post of Additional Chief Engineer. 8. 8. The learned Single Judge of Kohima Bench in his judgment and order dated 16.7.93 in Civil Rule No.ll9(K)1992 had taken the view that the respondent Nos, 4 did not hold a degree or equivalent and was only a Diploma holder and was not eligible under the 1984 Rules to be appointed and promoted to the post of Additional Chief Engineer and had quashed the notification dated 26.3.91 promoting the respondent No.3 to the post of Additional Chief Engineer. On 4.9.95 after hearing Mr. DK Mishra, learned counsel for the State-respondents, and Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 (respondent No,2 in the writ appeal), we entertained a doubt about the exact position under the Rules and had therefore directed by our order and judgment in Writ Appeal No. 142 of 1993 that the Departmental Promotion Committee and the State Government of Nagaland would decide the question by referring to the exact words used in the 1984 Rules as originally framed. At the hearing of the writ appeal, the review applicant (respondent No.l in the writ appeal) was not represented before us. After hearing Mr. Hansaria, learned counsel appearing for the review applicant we now have no doubt in our mind that the learned Single Judge had taken the right view in the impugned judgment and order dated 16.7.93 that under the 1984 Rules, 100% of the vacancies in the post of Additional Chief Engineer were to be filled up by degree holders or equivalent and that the respondent No.3 who did not have a degree or equivalent and was only a Diploma holder was not qualified to be appointed and promoted to the post of Additional Chief Engineer and had rightly quashed the order of appointment/promotion in the notification dated 26.3.91. There was thus a palpable or patent error in our judgment and order dated 4.9.93 in Writ Appeal No. 142 of 1993 which ought to be corrected by us in this review proceeding. The contention of Mr. Lahiri that this is not an appropriate case for review has therefore no merit. 9. Regarding the submission of Mr. There was thus a palpable or patent error in our judgment and order dated 4.9.93 in Writ Appeal No. 142 of 1993 which ought to be corrected by us in this review proceeding. The contention of Mr. Lahiri that this is not an appropriate case for review has therefore no merit. 9. Regarding the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the State- respondents, that the applicant having earlier moved this Court for directing the State-respondents to implement the judgment and order dated 4.9.95 in Writ Appeal No. 142 of 1993 and the judgment and order having been already implemented by the State-respondents, cannot now pray for review of the said judgment, the Supreme Court in the cases of Shivdeo Singh vs. State of Punjab and State of Gujarat vs. Sardarbegum (supra) has held that it is the duty of the Court to correct a palpable or patent error in its judgment with a view to prevent miscarriage of justice. In the present case, the position under the 1984 Rules was clear beyond doubt that a person who does not possess a degree or equivalent is not qualified to be appointed or promoted to the post of Additional Chief Engineer and the review applicant must have had a reasonable expectation that the Departmental Promotion Committee and the State Govt. which were directed by our judgment and order dated 4.9.95 to decide the question would also take a similar view, but contrary to his said expectation, the State Govt. has now promoted the respondent No.3 who did not have a degree in Engineering or equivalent to the post of Additional Chief Engineer. In these circumstances, the review applicant has moved this Court for justice, and we are under a duty to correct our judgment and order dated 4.9.95 and prevent the miscarriage of justice by exercising our inherent powers. 10. We therefore allow this review application and dismiss Writ Appeal No. 142 of 1993 and recall our directions in our judgment and order dated 4.9.95 and direct that the parties will be restored back to the position as if the said judgment and order was not delivered. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.