It is really a pitiable state of things that this review application has been filed after 773 days of passing of the order by this Court. This Court passed an order on 5.12.95 and gave certain directions in the judgment. The directions are quoted below: “Accordingly, a direction is given that the respondent Nos 2,3 and 4 to pay the arrear salary of the petitioner from 31.1.91 to 31.10.93. This shall be done within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the order. (ii) The authority is directed to dispose of the matter regarding the date of birth of the petitioner within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of the order. If on such determination it is found that the date of retirement fixed by the authority, ie, 1.2.91 as fixed by the authority earlier, the authority shall pay all the retirement benefits to the petitioner as due to him within a period of three (3) months from the date of disposal of the matter. (iii) If on such determination it is found that the claim of the petitioner is correct, he has a right to continue in service upto 1999 as claimed by him, the authority shall do the needful to take back the petitioner in service and allow him to continue in service. It is made clear that if it is found that he was to retire on 1.2.91, no recovery of the amount shall be made from the petitioner, but in order to give retirement benefit his date of retirement shall be considered as 1.2.91 and not 31.10.93.” 2. I will come to the first part of the direction later on but let us come to direction No. (ii) quoted above. The authority initiated enquiry and there was a letter by the Director of Elementary Education, Kahilipara, Assam, Gu wahati 19 asking the Sub Inspector of Schools to make an enquiry. The enquiry was made and that enquiry report in its entirety along with the statement of the Headmaster are quoted below: "With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to state that I have met the Principal of Bardubi High School presently Govt Aided HS School and the Ex Headmaster AC Dutta personally in the said school. The enquiry was made and that enquiry report in its entirety along with the statement of the Headmaster are quoted below: "With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to state that I have met the Principal of Bardubi High School presently Govt Aided HS School and the Ex Headmaster AC Dutta personally in the said school. I have found that records to verify the entry of age in the certificate of Sri Surendra Nath Tamuli. It is represented by the Principal and the Ex Headmaster that all documents, file registers, etc, were destroyed and burned in some public clash in 1962. Of course the Principal confess the reality of the certificate of Sri Tamuli with the record of this school and the signature of the Headmaster. Moreover, the Ex-Headmaster ensures that the certificate is genuine and correct, and that was assured by him at that time. He also adds that there is nothing doubtful regarding the entry of age in the certificate. He has given a written statement which is attached herewith. Another report of the Principal also enclosed. Though I could not verify the reality of age as entered in the certificate it can be assumed that the certificate of Sri Surendra Nath Tamuli is genuine with the entry of ages as per statement of Sri AC Dutta, Ex-Headmaster. This is for your information and favour of kind consideration and necessary action.” “Statement of Sri Ananda Chandra Dutta Ex-Headmaster of Bardubi High School on 18.7.96. In response to the enquiry held by the Sub Inspector of Schools, Duliajan in connection with the validity of the certificate issued to Sri Surendra Nath Tamuli of Pabhajan, Kathalguri, I do admit that the certificate in question is genuine and the handwriting and signature are mine. The 2nd point of question as regards the counterfoil of the certificates, it is worth mentioning herewith that two theft cases occurred in the school, missing all records and one type writer machine and a Duplicating machine. Police utilised the services of Police dogs, brought from Jorhat and in such circumstances, the Duplicating machine was recovered from a Garden Ditch. Further two suspected thieves one Mohan Tanti of Mankhushi line and another Robindra Ghuawalla were identified by the Dogs criminals who were forwarded to Jail Hajot. Police utilised the services of Police dogs, brought from Jorhat and in such circumstances, the Duplicating machine was recovered from a Garden Ditch. Further two suspected thieves one Mohan Tanti of Mankhushi line and another Robindra Ghuawalla were identified by the Dogs criminals who were forwarded to Jail Hajot. In 1960 a rival school was started by Late Rohini Lahon, Assistant Headmaster which continued for about 2 years and due to cyclone the thatched building was dismantled. Having no other alternative that party under the leadership of Late Rohin Lahon and a few men Late Jadab, Late Manik Das Hazarika Mauzadar filed a suit before the ADM at Dibrugarh praying for injunction against me and accordingly Late HN Khanikar of Dibrugarh whimsically issued the injunction intervening me to enter into the school premises. I submitted an appeal before then District Magistrate Mr. Krishnan Saigal IAS who immediately set aside the order. After receiving the order, I entered into the school office and found the locks of the Almirahs and the Secretary table broken and no records such as Admission Register, Transfer Certificate file, Govt Grant File and the counterfoil of TC could be found. Then I lodged a complaint before the Sub Judge at Dibrugarh against 10 persons, the then Inspector of Schools, the DI of Schools, Dibrugarh, MLAs, one and Late Rohini Lahan Assistant HM which continued till February, 1963. As I was elected as the Anchalik President at the request of the is of Schools the case was compromised. Now it is quite evident that the records were taken away for their personal gain and there are no records at all of my time being snatched away by the rival party.” 3. Director, Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara on 13th August, 1996 passed an order vide Annexure 2 wherein it was held that the petitioner retired from service on 31.1.91 and the age recorded in the service book was accepted to be correct. That letter is quoted below : “In inviting a reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to say that one Shri Surendra Nath Tamuli, Head Master, No. 18 Duliajan LP School, whose date of birth was 31.01.33 as recorded in the Service Book and was to retire from service on superannuation with effect from 30.1.91. That letter is quoted below : “In inviting a reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to say that one Shri Surendra Nath Tamuli, Head Master, No. 18 Duliajan LP School, whose date of birth was 31.01.33 as recorded in the Service Book and was to retire from service on superannuation with effect from 30.1.91. But he made an appeal alleging that the date of birth was wrongly recorded in Service Book as 1.1.33 instead of 1941. On verification of relevant records the age as recorded in the Service Book was accepted and communicated to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Dibrugarh vide this office letter No.EAA 5/82/93, dated 9.12.93 copy of which is enclosed herewith. But Shri Tamuli continued to work upto 31.10.93 for which the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 5.12.95 in CR No. 698 of 1994 has directed to make arrear salary for that period from 31.1.91 to 31.10.93. A copy of the Hon'ble High Court order as referred above is enclosed herewith for Govt perusal. An early action is solicited. It is, therefore, requested that Govt may be pleased to accord necessary order of regularisation of the overstay period from 31.1.91 to 31.10.93, so as, to enable this Directorate to pay his arrear salary for overstay period in terms of Hon'ble High Court order as mentioned above.” 4. In the letter quoted above itself there is clear admission as follows: “But Sri Tamuli continued to work upto 31.10.93”. 5. As the above order is passed by the Director, Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati 19 itself, it does not lie in the mouth of the authority to say that the petitioner did not work upto 31.10.93 and there should be a review of that order on that count on the basis of wrong assumption of facts. In support of this contention that there was a wrong^assumption of facts, Mr. Das, learned Advocate for the review petitioner produced before me the record wherein the first letter, ie, letter dated 1st September, 1997, it is stated as follows : “In inviting a reference to the subject quoted above and with regard to your letter under reference above, I am directed to request you to clarify as to whether there is any record of service rendered by Shri Surendra Nath Tamuli for the period from1.1.91 to 31.10.93 as Assistant Teacher, Duliajan Primary School. I am also directed to request you to clarify whether there was any order either from the Govt or from the Director of Elementary Education, Assam regarding extension of services of Shri Surendra Nath Tamuli. If it is found that Sri Surendra Nath Tamuli has in fact rendered services from 1.1.91 to 31.10.93 under whose orders such service was rendered. A report in this regard may be furnished by 25.09.97 in order to take a decision at the end. Yours faithfully OSD to Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt of Assam, Education Department. Memo. No. CR698/94/27-A Dated Dispur 1st September, 1997 Copy to: The Deputy Inspector of Schools, Dibrugarh. He is directed to make available records which have a bearing on the case to the Director of Elementary Education and also to contact Shri Benudhar Das, Advocate for preparation of Affidavit-in-oppositionimmediately. By Order etc OSD to Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt of Assam, Education Department” 6. Thereafter, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Dibrugarh submitted a report on 20th September, 1997 that he did not work for this period. That letter is quoted below : “With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to state that Shri Surendra Nath Tamuli, retired teacher of 82 No. Duliajan LP School did not work after his retirement for the period 1.2.91 to 31.10.93 as per report of the present and then Head Master of the School. Copy of the both letters are enclosed herewith along with copy of letter No. 1687 dated 11.10.96 of the Block Elementary Education Officer, Tengakhat in this regards. Further, as per record available in this office, there no any order was issued from this office allowing Shri Tamuli to continue in his post after his retirement. This is for favour of information and necessary action.” 7. On 11.10.96 the Block Elementary Education Officer, Tengakhat wrote a letter to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Dibrugarh. That letter is quoted below in its entirety : “With reference to the above, I have the honour to state that the SI of Schools No.11 Tengakhat Circle have visited the No. 18 Duliajan LP School in connection with the Court case of Sri Surendranath Tamuli, the following report have submitted to you received from the Circle Inspector (copy enclosed) (1) There are no records regarding the working of Sri S. Tamuli after 31.1.91. (2) Teachers attendance register for the period from 1.1.91 to 31.12.93 have not found in the school. (3) Same as SI No. 2. (4) As regards the working of Sri S. Tamuli, after 31.1.91, the photostat copies submitted by the Head Teacher and Assistant Teacher of the school are enclosed which speak itself. (5) Requirement of fund to Sri S. Tamuli for the period from 1.2.91 to 31.10.93 does not arise, as there are no sufficient records. This is for favour of your information and necessary action.” 8. In that letter there are two statements: (i) There are no records regarding the working of Sri S. Tamuli after 31.1.91. (ii) Teachers Attendance Register for the period from 1.1.91 to 31.12.93 have not been found in the school. 9. On the basis of this the authority says that Sri Surendra Nath Tamuli did not work for this period and is not entitled to salary. On the other hand in reply to review application, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has produced before me the photocopy of the Attendance Register for the month of January, 1992 wherein the name of Sri Surendra Nath Tamuli is shown in the Attendance Register, i.e., Annexure F to the reply of the review application. In the month of February, 1992 the name of Shri Surendra Nath Tamuli has been shown but he is shown to be absent on some days. His name also shown in the Attendance Register for the month of March and April, 1992. In the Attendance Register of students, there is a signature of Sri Surendra Nath Tamuli for the month of March, 1991 wherein there is also a signature of SI of Schools, Sri DN Sarma who visited the school on that date and on that date Sri Sarma found Mr. Tamuli to be present in the school'. So, this contention of review petitioner that he did not work for the period mentioned above is factually incorrect and this report submitted by the authority is a false one and as indicated above earlier the Director himself found that Sri Tamuli continued to work upto 31.10.93. Tamuli to be present in the school'. So, this contention of review petitioner that he did not work for the period mentioned above is factually incorrect and this report submitted by the authority is a false one and as indicated above earlier the Director himself found that Sri Tamuli continued to work upto 31.10.93. So, this review application filed after long lapse of 773 days on the basis of concocted facts cannot be accepted and this review application is to be thrown out on the ground of delay alone but I have looked to the matter so that no injustice shall be caused to the authority and it is for that reason I have meticulously looked to the records also and on perusal of the records, I find that this averments of the petitioner that he continued upto 31.10.93 is absolutely a correct statement and that was correctly found by this Court. Accordingly, there is no merit in this review application and the same is dismissed with an exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000 as the poor teacher has been unnecessarily dragged on to this Court that also after a lapse of 773 days, as if a review appli­cation can be filed by the authority as and when it becomes the pleasure of the authority. There is a time limit within which this review application may be filed. A review application cannot be filed at any time and according to sweet will and pleasure with an attempt, fond hope to make the earlier decision topsy turvy. As will be seen from the judgment sought to be reviewed, at that stage no affidavit was filed, no record was produced, by way of review now new things cannot be set up. If a person does not avail the remedy in an appropriate stage in accordance with the rule, he must suffer for it. The Court cannot keep its review door ajar open to allow somebody to come for review according to its own sweet will. 10. Sri BD Das, learned Advocate for the review petitioner placed reliance on two decisions: (i) AIR 1999 SC 462 (Srinivasiah vs. Balaji Krishna Hardware Stores). That was a case for eviction of a tenant and the Supreme Court accepted the plea of the landlord that room in question was required for the bona fide use by the son of landlord for opening a shop. That was a case for eviction of a tenant and the Supreme Court accepted the plea of the landlord that room in question was required for the bona fide use by the son of landlord for opening a shop. Later on it was pointed out to the Supreme Court that this finding of facts is not correct one as the finding of the Rent Collector is that the room in question was only a godown and as the assumption by the Court that available accommodation was a shop was a erroneous and it was on that back ground this review application was allowed. This case does not help the petitioner. (ii) Next case relied on by Sri Das is 1997 (II) All India Services Law Journal 130 (Radha Kishun vs. Union of India & others). That was a case where a person continued in service after retirement and the Supreme Court pointed out that allowing salary for that period will amount to legitimising an illegal action. That is not the position in hand. The position in hand as indicated above was that the petitioner claimed that he is entitled to continue upto 1999, and the matter was pending for enquiry. So, this case also does not help the petitioner. 11. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner Mr. Sarma places reliance in (1998) 7 SCC 445 (M. Satyanarayana Murthy & others vs. Mandal Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer). In this case there was a delay of 721 days in filing the review application and there was an application for condonation of delay. That application for condonation of delay was rejected and the Supreme Court imposed the cost of Rs.5,000 as filing of the review application was considered to be nothing but abuse of the process of Court. The Supreme Court pointed out that the review application cannot be filed by a party in a casual and cavalier manner. It must be filed only when it is necessary because a review application can be considered only in a rarest of the rare case. 12. Head Mr. BD Das, learned Advocate for the review petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner. 13. This disposes of the review application.