Judgment M.Y. EQBAL, C.J. 1. This writ appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned single Judge dated 25.04.2012 passed in Review Application No.19 of 2012, which was filed to review the order dated 10.02.2009 passed in W.P.No.30253 of 2008. 2. The aforesaid writ petition viz., W.P.No.30253 of 2008 was filed by the review petitioner herein seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 4th respondent-School, relating to their letter dated 17.12.2008, terminating the services of the petitioner and quash the same. The writ petition was disposed of on 10.02.2009 on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Being not satisfied with the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A.No.509 of 2009, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 22.04.2009 with liberty to the petitioner to file a review application. 3. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred review application viz., R.A.No.19 of 2012 to review the order dated 10.02.2009 passed in W.P.No.30253 of 2008 inter alia stating that she never gave any consent nor instructed her counsel in the writ petition to settle the dispute and to agree for the order passed in the writ petition, that she was not aware of the settlement nor there was any consent given by her or obtained from her by her counsel, and that the counsel, who represented her in the writ petition, wrongly consented for settlement without knowing the consequences, as the writ petition was filed mainly for the relief of quashing her termination order and for her reinstatement in the 4th respondent – school, which portion of the relief was not at all considered by the learned single Judge in the writ petition. 4. Since, the petitioner levelled allegations against her previous counsel, who represented her in the writ petition viz., Mr.P.Godson Swaminathan, he was asked to file a counter in the review application. Accordingly, he filed his counter affidavit and also appeared in person before the Court. 4. Since, the petitioner levelled allegations against her previous counsel, who represented her in the writ petition viz., Mr.P.Godson Swaminathan, he was asked to file a counter in the review application. Accordingly, he filed his counter affidavit and also appeared in person before the Court. He inter alia stated that the writ petition came up for hearing on several dates, i.e., on 19.01.2009, 21.01.2009, 22.01.2009, 29.01.2009 and 03.02.2009 and on all those days the interim order of stay granted earlier in favour of the petitioner was extended at his request, that the information relating to the happenings in the Court was also conveyed to the petitioner through phone, that almost on all those hearing dates the petitioner and her husband visited his office in the evening hours, and he apprised them of the developments in the case, and that the petitioner and her husband met him on 19.01.2009 and 21.01.2009 and instructed him that in case the Court is not inclined to give the relief sought for in the writ petition, he should make a request to the Court to direct the 4th respondent to return her certificates, which were withheld by the 4th respondent-school and also make a request to the Court to direct the 4th respondent to pay her arrears of salary. He further stated that he explained the petitioner that such a request will adversely affect her right to prefer an appeal against the order. But, even then she persisted with her demand for getting back her certificates and balance salary due to her. Therefore, at the hearing of the case on 21.01.2009, after some arguments, he made the request as instructed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the writ petition came up for hearing on 29.01.2009. On that day, as the 4th respondent had not made arrangements for the return of the certificates, the matter was adjourned to 02.02.2009. Again the writ petition was listed on 03.02.2009. On that occasion also at the instance of the 4th respondent it came to be adjourned to 10.02.2009. According to him, all these adjournments were informed to the petitioner, and finally on 10.02.2009 the order impugned in the review application was passed. He informed about the final order passed in the writ petition, and requested the petitioner to collect the certificates and the two cheques dated 17.12.2008 and 29.01.2009, which were given by the 4th respondent towards her salary dues. He informed about the final order passed in the writ petition, and requested the petitioner to collect the certificates and the two cheques dated 17.12.2008 and 29.01.2009, which were given by the 4th respondent towards her salary dues. According to him, he reminded several times, but the petitioner did not turn up. Hence, he wrote a letter on 06.07.2009 asking her to collect the certificates and the cheques. It is stated that he never advised her to close the case and the entire allegations made against him are false. 5. In the review application, learned counsel for the 4th respondent-school corroborated the version of Mr. P. Godson Swaminathan, and submitted that the writ petition was listed for hearing on various dates, and when it was brought to the knowledge of the Court about a decision of the Supreme Court in Vidyavardhaka Sangha Vs. Y.D. Deshpande reported in 2007-2-L.W. 753, wherein it has been laid down that the appointment made on probation/ad hoc basis for a specified period of time would be coming to an end by efflux of time and person holding such post can have no right to continue on the post, the learned Judge expressed his view that the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted, and only in such circumstances, Mr. P. Godson Swaminathan sought time to get instructions from the petitioner, and after receiving such instructions only the aforesaid order came to be passed in the writ petition. 6. The learned single Judge dismissed the review application observing that the only mistake committed by Mr. P. Godson Swaminathan is that under the bona fide belief and faith reposed on his client, he had failed to obtain written consent from his client. Had he obtained such written consent from his client there would not have been an occasion for the review petitioner to make such allegations against him. Aggrieved, the present writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner. 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/review petitioner. None appears for the contesting fourth respondent. 8. As noticed above, the writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of termination dated 17.12.2008, making out a specific case that the order of termination was passed mala fide and with ulterior motive, on the basis of false allegations made therein. None appears for the contesting fourth respondent. 8. As noticed above, the writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of termination dated 17.12.2008, making out a specific case that the order of termination was passed mala fide and with ulterior motive, on the basis of false allegations made therein. The petitioner was appointed as Librarian on a probation of one year and upon satisfactory completion of the probationary period, her services were extended by the fourth respondent for a further period of one year and then, further extension was given for another year. In this manner, she continued in service for more than four years. The petitioner, therefore, requested to make her services permanent since she had already completed three years of unblemished service. That was not acceded to by the fourth respondent. The services of the petitioner were terminated and the order was communicated by letter dated 6.11.2008, making bold allegations against her. The petitioner, by her reply dated 11.11.2008, challenged the termination as being motivated and vindictive. However, the said termination order was subsequently withdrawn by the resolution of the Governing Body of the fourth respondent-school dated 2.12.2008. Curiously enough, after a few days, another resolution was passed by the Governing Body on 16.12.2008 terminating the services of the petitioner by tendering three months’ salary. The said order was challenged in the writ petition. 9. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition on the basis of the submissions made by the petitioner’s counsel that some settlement was arrived at between the parties. For better appreciation, the order dated 10.2.2009 disposing of Writ Petition No.30253 of 2008 is quoted herein below:- “ORDER The above writ petition has been filed for the issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the fourth respondent in their letter dated, 17.12.2008 terminating the services of the petitioner and quash the same. 2. Heard both. 3. The learned counsel on either side submitted that the petitioner has received wages upto 30.04.2009 from the fourth respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the original certificates submitted by the petitioner to the fourth respondent are yet to be returned to her. 4. Mr. 2. Heard both. 3. The learned counsel on either side submitted that the petitioner has received wages upto 30.04.2009 from the fourth respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the original certificates submitted by the petitioner to the fourth respondent are yet to be returned to her. 4. Mr. R. Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the fourth respondent is having the Transfer Certificate and B.A. Provisional Certificate of the writ petitioner, which the fourth respondent is willing to return immediately but the petitioner is insisting that her S.S.L.C. and +2 Certificates also should be returned. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the S.S.L.C. and +2 Certificates of the petitioner are not traceable in the office of the fourth respondent and hence, the duplicate of those two certificates have to be obtained from the authorities concerned and the fourth respondent undertakes to obtain them at the earliest point of time, provided the petitioner shall cooperate by signing necessary application forms. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to cooperate by signing necessary application forms to enable the fourth respondent to obtain duplicate certificates, namely., S.S.L.C. and +2 Certificates of the petitioner and the petitioner is willing to receive all the four certificates together and till such time the fourth respondent can retain her transfer certificate and B.A. Provisional Certificate. 6. In view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the parties, the above writ petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the case in the following terms:- The fourth respondent shall take immediate steps to get duplicate S.S.L.C. and +2 certificates of the petitioner from the concerned authorities at the earliest and in that respect, the petitioner shall co-operate with the fourth respondent by signing necessary application forms and after obtaining the same, all the certificates shall be returned to the petitioner. Connected M.Ps. are closed. No costs.” The petitioner challenged the said order by filing appeal being Writ Appeal No.509 of 2009 on the ground that no settlement was ever arrived at and whatever was recorded in the impugned order was not correct. Further, the petitioner never instructed her counsel to make such submissions regarding the alleged settlement. Connected M.Ps. are closed. No costs.” The petitioner challenged the said order by filing appeal being Writ Appeal No.509 of 2009 on the ground that no settlement was ever arrived at and whatever was recorded in the impugned order was not correct. Further, the petitioner never instructed her counsel to make such submissions regarding the alleged settlement. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by a Division Bench with liberty to move a petition for review of the order passed in the writ petition. The order passed in the writ appeal reads as under :- “Heard Mr. S.M. Subramaniam, learned counsel in support of this appeal. The submission of the learned counsel is that, what is recorded in the impugned order is not correct and no such instructions to dispose of the writ petition or to arrive at a settlement were given. If that is so, the appellant should apply for review of the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the learned counsel seeks leave to withdraw the present writ appeal with liberty to move for review of the order of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is dismissed as having been withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2009 is closed. That is how a review petition was filed by the petitioner/appellant for review being Review Application No.19 of 2009, which was finally dismissed by the learned single Judge by order dated 25.4.2012 and the same is impugned in this appeal. 10. Before the learned single Judge, it was the categorical stand of the petitioner that she had never instructed her counsel Mr. P. Godson Swaminathan to give consent for the order that was passed in the writ petition. Whereas, Mr. P. Godson Swaminathan, counsel for the petitioner, who was noticed to appear, filed an affidavit stating that all developments of each and every date in the writ petition had been communicated to the petitioner through phone. The petitioner and her husband visited his office in the evenings on almost all the dates and they were briefed accordingly. Whereas, Mr. P. Godson Swaminathan, counsel for the petitioner, who was noticed to appear, filed an affidavit stating that all developments of each and every date in the writ petition had been communicated to the petitioner through phone. The petitioner and her husband visited his office in the evenings on almost all the dates and they were briefed accordingly. He further stated in his affidavit that the petitioner and her husband met him on 19.1.2009 and 29.1.2009 and instructed him that in case the court is not inclined to give the relief sought for in the writ petition, he should make a request to the court to direct the fourth respondent-school to return her certificates, which were withheld by the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent-school should pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner. The averments made by the counsel in the affidavit were entirely denied and disputed by the petitioner. The learned single Judge narrated all these events and came to the conclusion that the contention made by the writ petitioner cannot be accepted for the reason that if the review petitioner had not really instructed her counsel to agree for the settlement suggested by the counsel for the fourth respondent, there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for Mr. P. Godson Swaminathan to agree for the suggestion. At the same time, the court, however, observed that the mistake that has been committed by Mr. P. Godson Swaminathan is that, under the bona fide belief and faith reposed on him by his client, he had failed to obtain written consent from the petitioner. Had he obtained written consent from his client, i.e., the review petitioner, there would not have been an occasion for the review petitioner to make such allegations against him. 11. The original order dated 10.2.2009 passed in the writ petition reveals that the writ petition was disposed of on the basis of the promises made by the petitioner and the respondent. From the side of the fourth respondent-school, it was agreed that the original certificates submitted by the petitioner to the fourth respondent-school at the time of her joining are yet to be returned to her. The fourth respondent was willing to return the other certificates, viz. the Transfer Certificate, B.A. Provisional Certificate etc. immediately. From the side of the fourth respondent-school, it was agreed that the original certificates submitted by the petitioner to the fourth respondent-school at the time of her joining are yet to be returned to her. The fourth respondent was willing to return the other certificates, viz. the Transfer Certificate, B.A. Provisional Certificate etc. immediately. The fourth respondent informed the court that the SSLC and +2 certificates of the petitioner were not traceable and hence, duplicate copies shall be obtained from the authorities concerned and shall be given to the petitioner. Whereas, the petitioner was willing to co-operate by signing necessary application forms to enable the fourth respondent to obtain the duplicate certificates. In view of the promises and reciprocal promises, the writ petition was disposed of. Here, it is worth to mention that the promises and reciprocal promises were made by the counsel for the parties. If such type of promises and reciprocal promises are made, then we are of the view that the writ petition should be disposed of by calling upon the parties to reduce the terms of such settlement in writing. Although in the order passed in the review petition it was submitted by the counsel on either side that the petitioner has received wages upto 30.4.2009 from the fourth respondent, but as a matter of fact, it was not so. The submission made by the counsel for the parties that the petitioner received the wages upto 30.4.2009 does not appear to be correct for the reason that two cheques were handed over to the petitioner’s counsel by the fourth respondent, but it was not at the instance of the petitioner. On the contrary, the petitioner was asked to collect those cheques, but the petitioner did not collect those cheques. The said fact is evident from the letter dated 6.7.2009 written by P. Godson Swaminathan, advocate of the petitioner, which is reproduced herein below :- “To Mrs. Jecintha Vijayakumar, No.36, Om Sakthi Nagar, 4th Street, Alwarthirunagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. Madam, Sub: WP. No.30253 of 2008 – Mrs. Jecintha Vijayakumar vs. The Department of School Education & 3 others – Final Order – cheques towards pay – reminder to collect – reg. Jecintha Vijayakumar, No.36, Om Sakthi Nagar, 4th Street, Alwarthirunagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. Madam, Sub: WP. No.30253 of 2008 – Mrs. Jecintha Vijayakumar vs. The Department of School Education & 3 others – Final Order – cheques towards pay – reminder to collect – reg. In the above matter, the 4th respondent has given through court Cheques bearing Nos.010667 (dated 17.12.2008) and 010212 (dated 29.1.2009) drawn on Union Bank of India, Adyar Branch in your favour towards payment of your salary for the months from December, 2008 to April, 2009. Despite reminders through phone by us, you did not collect the Cheques from us. Kindly collect the cheques immediately from us. We cannot hold the cheques any longer. Warm regards, Yours sincerely, [P. GODSON SWAMINATH] ” 12. From the aforesaid letter, it is evidently clear that the learned single Judge, while passing the order in the review petition, has wrongly proceeded on the basis of the submission made by the counsel that the petitioner had received wages upto 30.4.2009 from the fourth respondent. 13. Indisputably, although the petitioner was appointed initially for a period of one year on probation, because of her unblemished record and satisfactory performance, it was extended thrice for a period of one year consecutively and thereby, she continued in service for more than four years. All of a sudden, the services of the petitioner were terminated by order dated 6.11.2008 on the ground, inter alia, that her employment continued to be a temporary one and the post of Librarian is not an aided one from the Government. Curiously enough, for three consecutive years, the services of the petitioner were extended on the ground of satisfactory performance, but suddenly it was alleged in the termination letter that her performance continued to flounder and she has failed to improve herself. The further allegation against the petitioner was that she made baseless allegations against other staff etc. Realizing the fact that the termination order was ex facie stigmatic, the same was withdrawn by the fourth respondent by resolution dated 2.12.2008. Few days thereafter, by another resolution dated 16.12.2008, her services were again terminated, showing it a termination simpliciter. These facts themselves show that the action of the fourth respondent-school prima facie cannot be held to be a bona fide one. This important fact has not been considered by the learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. 14. Few days thereafter, by another resolution dated 16.12.2008, her services were again terminated, showing it a termination simpliciter. These facts themselves show that the action of the fourth respondent-school prima facie cannot be held to be a bona fide one. This important fact has not been considered by the learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. 14. It is well settled that a writ court exercising its power of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India not only acts as a court of law, but also as a court of equity. In the case of Food Corporation of India vs. M/s. SEIL Ltd. Reported in 2008 (3) L.W. 16, the Supreme Court observed that “Awrit court exercises its power of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India itself. While exercising the said jurisdiction, it not only acts as a court of law but also as a court of equity. A clear error or omission on the part of the court to consider a justifiable claim on its part would be subject to review; amongst others on the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit (An act of the courts shall prejudice none). We appreciate the manner in which the learned Judge accepted his mistake and granted relief to the respondents”. 15. The contention made by the learned counsel in the affidavit filed by him before the review court is not supported by any correspondence made by him with the petitioner. 16. After giving our anxious consideration in the matter, we are prima facie of the view that the writ petition challenging the order of termination of the petitioner’s services has to be decided on merit and not on the basis of the concession alleged to have been given by the petitioner. Justice would be subserved if the petitioner’s contention is considered on merit and the legality and validity of the termination order is determined conclusively. 17. For the ends of justice, therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed in the review petition, as also the one passed in the writ petition, and direct the writ petition to be listed before the appropriate Bench for hearing and disposal on merits. 17. For the ends of justice, therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed in the review petition, as also the one passed in the writ petition, and direct the writ petition to be listed before the appropriate Bench for hearing and disposal on merits. We hereby clarify that any observation or expression made by us with regard to the validity and legality of the termination order shall not be taken as conclusive, and the writ court shall decide the writ petition on its own merits, without being prejudiced by any of the observations made by us in this order. There shall be no order as to costs.