I A. Ansari, J This is a petition seeking review of the judgment and order, dated 30.4.2012, passed in Writ Appeal No. 09(AP)/2010. 2. The review petitioners were respondents in WP(C) No.171(AP)/2009, which was a writ petition, made under article 226 of the Constitution of India, putting to challenge the legality and validity of the orders, dated 26.5.2004 and 5.2.2004, whereby contractual appointments of the Post Graduate Teachers had been regularized as well as the order, dated 11.11.2008, whereby the present two review petitioners (who were respondents No.5 and 24, respectively, in the said writ petition), were promoted as Headmaster and Vice-Principal, respectively. 3. The said writ proceeding was instituted on the ground, inter alia, that regularization of the private respondents, impleaded in the writ petition (who included the present two review petitioners), was bad in law inasmuch as the private respondents impleaded in the writ petition, including the review petitioners herein, were contractual appointees as teachers and they, having not been recruited, in terms of the provisions of the relevant recruitment rules, their appointments were bad in law. 4. By judgment and order, dated 3.6.2010, a learned Single Judge of this court allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders regularizing the contractual appointments of all the private respondents in the said writ petition including the present two review petitioners. By judgment and order, dated 3.6.2010, the learned Single Judge also directed the State respondents to carry out the exercise of fixing the seniority of the writ petitioners in terms of the relevant rules and in accordance with law. The private respondents, in the writ petition, who were adversely affected by the verdict of the learned Single Judge, included, as already indicated above, the present two review petitioners. 5. Aggrieved by the order, dated 3.6.2010, whereby WP(C) No.171(AP)/2009 was disposed of with directions, as mentioned hereinabove, the respondents, in the writ petition, filed various appeals. Among these writ appeals, Writ Appeal No.09(AP)/2010 came to be filed by some of the private respondents in the said writ petition including the present two review petitioners, who were appellant Nos.1 and 20 respectively in the said writ appeal. Two more appeals were filed by the remaining respondents in the said writ petition, these two appeals being Writ Appeal No.10(AP)/2010 and 11(AP)/2010. 6. Two more appeals were filed by the remaining respondents in the said writ petition, these two appeals being Writ Appeal No.10(AP)/2010 and 11(AP)/2010. 6. All the appeals, having arisen out of a common judgment and order, dated 3.6.2010, passed in WP(C) No.171(AP)/2009, were heard together and was disposed of, on 30.4.2012, by a common judgment and order passed by a Division Bench of this court. 7. On examining the grievances of the appellants in the said writ appeals, the Division Bench, in the light of the materials on record and the law relevant thereto, took the view that the State's action, in regularizing the contractual appointments, in question, was wholly illegal and had rightly not been sustained by the learned Single Judge. 8. Thus, the Division Bench, in the said three writ appeals, affirmed the conclusion, which the learned Single Judge had reached in WP(C) No.171(AP)/2009, that appointments of the private respondents, in the said writ petition, which included the present two review petitioners, were illegal. 9. Having, however, agreed that the learned Single Judge's view that the impugned regularization of the contractual appointments was not sustainable in law, the Division Bench observed that it would have, ordinarily, sustained the learned Single Judge's directions given in the writ petition, but having taken into consideration the special facts and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench was of the view that the private respondents, in the writ petition, having remained in service since 4.2.2004 and their regularization having come to be challenged as late as in the year 2009 and, in the meanwhile, various orders of promotions to the posts of Headmaster/Vice Principal having already been made, it would be, in the fitness of things, in the peculiar circumstance of the case, if the regular employees, i.e., the writ petitioners, in the said writ petition [i.e., WP(C) No.171(AP)/2009], were made to rank, in the gradation list of Post Graduate Teachers, junior to all the writ petitioners, including respondent Nos.4 and 5, in the present review petition. 10. The Division Bench, therefore, while upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge, modified the relief by directing that appointments of the private respondents in the writ petition including the two review petitioners, would remain undisturbed, but they would all be made to rank, in the gradation list of Post Graduate Teachers, junior to the writ petitioners including respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein. The relevant observations, made by the Division Bench, and the penultimate directions, issued, in this regard, by the Division Bench, read as under : "40. Because of what have been discuss and pointed out above, we are firmly of the view that the State's action, in regularizing the contractual appointments, in the present case, was wholly illegal and cannot be sustained. We would have, therefore, ordinarily, sustained the learned Single Judge's direction setting aside and quashing the impugned order of regularization of the contractual employees. What has, however, gone unnoticed by learned Single Judge is that the regularization was made as far back as on 4.2.2004; but the writ petitioners put to challenge this regularization in the year 2009, when various orders of promotion to the post of Headmaster/Vice-Principal were made on 11.11.2008. There is substance in what is contended, on behalf of writ petitioners (who are the private respondents in the present appeals) that the writ petitioners had not challenged the regularization of the contractual appointments, because it had not affected them, and when the illegally regularized employees were sought to be made senior to them by granting promotion to the posts of Headmaster/Vice-Principal, the writ petitioners were left with no option but to challenge the legality of the very regularization of those contractual appointees. 41. Be that as it may, as the contractual appointees, whose appointments had been made permanent, remained working as regular teachers until the time they were promoted by various orders passed in the year 2008, we are of the view that it would not be proper to interfere belatedly with the regularization of the appointments concerned and it would be in the fitness of things, in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, to make the regularised employees (i.e., the private appellants in these appeals) rank, in the gradation list of Post Graduate Teachers, junior to the writ petitioners, who are private respondents in the present appeals. 42. The situation, in the present case is, to a great degree, akin to the case of State of U.P. v. Raffiquddin, AIR 1988 SC 162 ). 42. The situation, in the present case is, to a great degree, akin to the case of State of U.P. v. Raffiquddin, AIR 1988 SC 162 ). In Raffiquddin (supra), the Supreme Court was confronted with a situation in which, while, on the one hand, a batch of persons was appointed in the judicial service of the State in violation of the relevant Rules of recruitment, another batch of persons was, on the other hand, appointed in the same service in accordance with the Rules, the irregular appointees having, however, been accorded seniority over the regular appointees on the ground that the irregular appointees were selected from the selection test held in the year 1970, whereas the regular appointees were selected from the selection test held in the year 1972. Dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court observed and held as follows : "13.... The appointment of unplaced candidates made in pursuance of the decision taken by the high level committee is not countenanced by the Rules. There is no escape from the conclusion that the unplaced candidates were not appointed to the service on the basis of the result of the competitive examination of 1970. Their appointment was made in breach of the Rules, in pursuance to the decision of the high level committee. It is well settled that where recruitment to service is regulated by the statutory rules, recruitment must be made in accordance with those Rule, any appointment made in breach of rules would be illegal. The appointment of 21 Unplaced candidates' made out of the third list was illegal as it was made in violation of the provisions of the Rules. The high level committee which took decision for recruitment of candidates to the service on the basis of the 40 per cent aggregate marks disregarding the minimum marks fixed by the Commission for viva voce test had no authority in law, as the Rules do not contemplate any such committee and any decision taken by it could not be implemented. 14. We are surprised that the Chief Justice, Chief Minister or as well as the Chairman of the Commission agreed to adopt this procedure which was contrary to the Rules. 14. We are surprised that the Chief Justice, Chief Minister or as well as the Chairman of the Commission agreed to adopt this procedure which was contrary to the Rules. The high level committee even though constituted by highly placed persons had no authority in law to disregard the Rules and to direct the Commission to make recommendation in favour of unsuccessful candidates disregarding the minimum marks prescribed for the viva voce test. The high level committee's view that after the amendment of rule 19, the minimum qualifying marks fixed for viva could he ignored was wholly wrong. Rule 19 was amended in January 1972, but before that 1970 examination had already been held. Since the amendment was not retrospective the result of any examination held before January 1972 could not be determined on the basis of amended Rules. The Public Service Commission is a constitutional and independent authority. It plays a pivotal role in the selection and appointment of persons to public services. It secures efficiency in the public administration by selecting suitable and efficient persons for appointment to the services. The Commission has to perform its functions and duties in an independent and objective manner uninfluenced by the dictates of any other authority. It is not subservient to the directions of the Government unless such directions are permissible by law. Rules vest power in the Commission to hold the competitive examination and to select suitable candidates on the criteria fixed by it. The State Government or the high level committee could not issue any directions to the Commission for making recommendation in favour of those candidates who failed to achieve the minimum prescribed standards as the Rules did not confer any such power on the State Government. In this view even if the Commission had made recommendation in favour of the unplaced candidates under the directions of the Government the appointment of the unplaced candidates was illegal as the same was made in violation of the Rules. 15..... But even if the Commission had agreed to the Government's suggestion, their appointments continued to be illegal, as the same were made in breach of Rules. There was no justification for the appointment of the unsuccessful candidates in 1975, because by that time result of 1972 examination had been announced and duly selected candidates were available for appointment." 16.... 15..... But even if the Commission had agreed to the Government's suggestion, their appointments continued to be illegal, as the same were made in breach of Rules. There was no justification for the appointment of the unsuccessful candidates in 1975, because by that time result of 1972 examination had been announced and duly selected candidates were available for appointment." 16.... If selected candidates are available for appointment on the basis of the competitive examination of subsequent years, it would be unreasonable and unjust to revive the list of earlier examination by changing norms to fill up the vacancies as that would adversely affect the right of those selected at the subsequent examination in matters relating to their seniority under rule 22. The 1970 examination could not be utilized as a perennial source or inexhaustible reservoir for making appointments indefinitely. *** *** *** 19. The unplaced candidates were appointed to the service in breach of the Rules and they form a separate class. They cannot be equated with those who were appointed to the service from the first and second list of 1970 examination as their appointment was made on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. They remain unchallenged. Similarly, candidates appointed to the service on the basis of the result of the competitive examination of 1972 before the unplaced candidates were appointed, formed separate class as they were also appointed in accordance with the Rules. The "unplaced candidates" of 1970 examination cannot claim seniority over them on the basis of rule 22 as their appointment was not made on the basis of the list approved by the Commission under rule 19. In Shitala Prasad Shukla v. State of U.R, 1986 Supp SCC 185 : ( AIR 1986 SC 1859 ) this court held that an employee must belong to the same stream before he can claim seniority vis-a-vis others. Those appointed irregularly belong to a different stream and they cannot claim seniority vis-a-vis those who may have been regularly and properly appointed. 20.... But we are also of the view that having regard to the period of 12 years that have elapsed, we do not propose to strike down their appointments. 21. Now the question arises as to when seniority should be assigned to the unplaced candidates. 20.... But we are also of the view that having regard to the period of 12 years that have elapsed, we do not propose to strike down their appointments. 21. Now the question arises as to when seniority should be assigned to the unplaced candidates. Their claim for assigning them seniority on the basis of the competitive examination of 1970 is not sustainable in law as discussed above. They were appointed to service after five years of the examination and before their appointment, competitive examination of 1972 had taken place and candidates selected under that examination had been appointed to services prior to their appointment. The directions issued by the High Court for rearranging the merit list of 1970 examination seriously affect the seniority of those who were regularly selected in accordance with the norms prescribed by the Commission. Having regard to these facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the view taken on by the High Court on its administrative side and the State Government that the unplaced candidates of 1970 examination should be assigned seniority below the last candidate of 1972 examination appointed to the service is just and reasonable. In our opinion it would be just and proper to assign seniority to the unplaced candidates of 1970 examination at the bottom of the line of 1972 candidates. There were 37 unplaced candidates of 1970 examination who were included in the third list, of them 16 candidates appeared in the 1972 examination and they were successful and their names were approved by the Commission in the list prepared under rule 19. The State Government appointed them in service. Under rule 22 they are entitled to seniority of 1972 examination but in view of the judgment of the High Court in Rafiquddin's case their seniority has been determined on the basis of their recruitment to service under the 1970 examination. We have already recorded findings that unplaced candidates of 1970 examination (as included in the third list) have not been recruited in service according to the Rules and their recruitment to service cannot be treated under 1970 examination for purposes of determining their seniority under rule 22. We have further directed that 21 unplaced candidates of 1970 examination should be placed below the candidates of 1972 examination. We have further directed that 21 unplaced candidates of 1970 examination should be placed below the candidates of 1972 examination. But so far as 16 remaining candidates are concerned, they were appointed to the service on the result of 1972 examination and their appointment does not suffer from any legal infirmity. They are therefore entitled to seniority of 1972 examination on the basis of their position in the merit list of that examination. They are, however, not entitled to the seniority of 1970 on the basis of the examination of that year as held by the High Court." (emphasis supplied) 43. An important underlying principle of the decision, in Rafiquddin (supra), is that even when, on account of lapse of a long period of time, appointment, made to a service in breach of the relevant recruitment rules, is not set aside and quashed, such irregular appointee shall not be allowed to steal a march over the regular appointees, for, as reiterated in Rafiquddin (supra), "an employee must belong to the same stream before he can claim seniority vis-a-vis others. Those appointed irregularly belong to a different stream and they cannot claim seniority vis-a-vis those, who may have been regularly and properly appointed". 44. Following the principle of law, as indicated hereinabove, it is possible that without setting aside and quashing the appointment of an irregular appointee, the Court or Tribunal may direct the appointing authority to treat a regular appointee, in service, though appointed later, in point of time, than the irregular appointee, as senior to the irregular appointee. In other words, an irregular appointee, particularly, if his appointment suffers from arbitrariness, mala fide and colourable exercise of powers, cannot be allowed to gain seniority over the regular appointee, for, he cannot be said to belong to the same stream even if the appointment of the irregular appointee is prior in point of time and is not disturbed on account of long period of service, which the irregular appointee might have put in. 45. 45. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the judgment and order, under appeal, are hereby upheld subject to the modification that the appointments of those, who were impleaded as private respondents in the writ petitions, would remain undisturbed, but they would be made to rank, in the gradation list of Senior (Post-Graduate) Teachers, junior to the writ petitioners (i.e., the private respondents in these appeals) inasmuch as this would meet, to our mind, the ends of justice and would not adversely affect the rights of the writ petitioners." 11. The directions, given by the Division Bench, in the appeals aforementioned, were accepted by the parties concerned. As none of the parties to the writ appeals had challenged the above directions, which had been given by the Division Bench, the said directions of the Division Bench attained finality. 12. It is, thereafter, that the present review petition has been filed by respondent Nos.5 and 24 in the said writ petition, who were appellant Nos.1 and 20, respectively in Writ Appeal No.09(AP)/2010, the case of the two review petitioners being, in brief, thus : (a) In compliance with the directions, issued by the Division Bench, the State Government, while re-fixing the seniority of Post Graduate Teachers, placed 22 of the writ petitioners above the private respondents in the writ petition including the two review petitioners without, however, extending any such benefit of seniority to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, who were, as already indicated above, writ petitioner Nos.12 and 13 respectively in WP(C) No.171(AP)/2009. This course of action, which the State Government had adopted, aroused suspicion in the mind of the two review petitioners and they, therefore, made appropriate application to the Department concerned seeking some information in terms of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and found out that respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein were not promotees unlike the other writ petitioners; rather, respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein were direct recruits to the posts of Senior Teacher. (b) Thus, the averments, made in the writ petition by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, that they, too, were promotees to the posts of Senior Teacher was incorrect and this incorrect averment, which the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein had made, misled the court to give to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein the same benefit, which had been given to the promotes in the said writ petition. 4 and 5 herein had made, misled the court to give to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein the same benefit, which had been given to the promotes in the said writ petition. In the meanwhile, however, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have instituted a contempt proceeding against the State respondents for not extending to them the benefit of the directions, which have been given by the Division Bench of this court by its judgment and order, dated 30.4.2012, aforementioned. 13. With the help of the present review petition, the review petitioners, now, seek review of the judgment and order, dated 30.4.2012, aforementioned and pray for exclusion of respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, who were respondent Nos.15 and 16 in Writ Appeal No.09(AP)/2010, from the ambit of the , which were given under judgment and order, dated 30.4.2012, passed by the Division Bench. 14. We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, for the review petitioners, and Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned senior counsel, for the respondent Nos.4 and 5. We have also heard Ms. M. Bora, learned Government Advocate, for the State respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 15. In order to bring home the point, Mr. Choudhury has drawn our attention to paras 2 and 3 of the writ petition, which read as under : "2. The petitioners have been serving as Senior Teachers in different schools in different parts of Arunachal Pradesh after the promotion to the post of Senior Teachers from the post of Junior Teachers with effect from 28.7.2005 onwards. The petitioners are residing in different parts of Arunachal Pradesh as shown in the heads and are citizens of India under the provision of the Constitution of India. As such, the petitioners are entitled to all the privilege and protection guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioners have prepared and moved this instant writ petition seeking interference of this court for setting aside and quashing of the illegal officer order No.ED.2/APT/551/2001 dated 26.5.2004 and office order No.ED. As such, the petitioners are entitled to all the privilege and protection guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioners have prepared and moved this instant writ petition seeking interference of this court for setting aside and quashing of the illegal officer order No.ED.2/APT/551/2001 dated 26.5.2004 and office order No.ED. 2/215/APT/2004 dated 5.2.2005 illegally regularizing the contract service of the private respondents and the petitioners have also sought for interference of this Court for direction to rectify and to correct the seniority position of the petitioners as well as of the private respondent Nos.4 to 29 contained in the provisional seniority list of Senior Teachers maintained by the Department of Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh." (emphasis supplied) 16. It has been contended by Mr. Choudhury that respondent Nos.4 and 5 had made, in the writ petition, an incorrect statement in order to mislead this court, the incorrect statement being that they, same as other writ petitioners, had been serving as senior teachers in different schools, in different parts of Arunachal Pradesh, upon their promotion to the posts of senior teacher from the posts of Junior teachers with effect from 28.7.2005 onwards; whereas the fact of the matter was that neither respondent No.4 nor respondent No.5 herein was a promotee to the posts of Senior teacher; rather, both of them were direct recruits to the posts of senior teachers and, hence, their averments, made in the writ petition, to the effect that they were promotees to the posts of senior teacher and were similarly situated as the other writ petitioners, in the said writ petition, were wholly untrue and, in fact, misled the court to extend the same relief to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, which were given to other writ petitioners, in the said writ petition, treating respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein as promotees and not direct recruits. 17. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, in the light of the averments made in the review petition, have also submitted that appointment of respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein are illegal inasmuch one post each, in the grade of senior teacher, in the subjects of English and Political Science, were advertised by the advertisement, dated 12.4.2006, and, following the said advertisement, two persons, namely, Smt. Yabiang Anku Pade and Taje Gambo, were appointed, as senior teachers, in English and Political Science respectively against the said two advertised posts. 18. 18. It is the contention of the review petitioners, as pointed out by Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, that as the advertised vacancies had already been filed up, the State respondents could not have appointed respondent Nos.4 and 5 against those filled up vacancies and, hence, the review petitioners have reasons to believe that respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein had come to be appointed for extraneous reasons and in the most illegal and arbitrary manner by the State authorities. 19. Attempting to explain as to why the two review petitioners could not bring the above aspect of the matter to the notice of the Court, when the writ petition and/or the writ appeals were heard, Mr. Choudhury submits that the facts, mentioned hereinbefore as regards the nature of appointments of respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, were not within the knowledge of the review petitioners and, therefore, they could not place these facts before the court despite due diligence exercised by them. 20. Careful, however, is Mr. Choudhury in pointing out that the review petitioners have not, in the present review petition, sought for setting aside or quashing the appointments of respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, but they are, according to Mr. Choudhury, liable to be excluded from the purview of the benefit of the directions, which were issued by the Division Bench in its judgment and order, dated 30.4.2012. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, therefore, submits that the review petitioners would separately make appropriate writ application, under article 226 of the Constitution of India, putting to challenge the legality and validity of the appointments of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein to the post of senior teachers as direct recruits. 21. In short, thus, the two review petitioners do not seek, with the help of this review petition, setting aside of the appointment orders of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, but they do seek relief of excluding respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein from the purview of the benefit of the directions given by the Division Bench as regards fixation of seniority. 22. Resisting the review petition, Mr. 22. Resisting the review petition, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior counsel, has pointed out that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have impleaded themselves in the writ petition as petitioners, because they had a common cause of action or, at least, perceived their cause of action to be common in nature and decided to challenge the regularization of the contractual appointees on the ground that the regularization was not in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules and all the writ petitioners, including respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, executed their vakalatnama and entrusted some of the writ petitioners to get the writ petition prepared and filed before this court and, accordingly, the writ petition was prepared and the averments, made in the writ petition, were sworn by petitioner No.2, Tage Kaki, on behalf of all the writ petitioners. 23. It needs to be noted, submits Mr. Mishra, that none of the writ petitioners, including respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, had sought for any change in the state of seniority in the post of senior teachers. What the writ petitioners had challenged, in their writ petition, points out Mr. Mishra, was the basis of regularization of the contractual appointments of the private respondents in the said writ petition including the two review petitioners and the learned Single Judge, having found regularization of the contractual appointments of the private respondents, in the writ petition, including the present two review petitioners, illegal, the same being in violation of the relevant recruitment rules, set aside and quashed the regularization of the private respondents, in the writ petition, including the present review petitioners, on the ground that their recruitment/regularization was not in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules. 24. It is pointed out by Mr. Mishra, learned senior counsel, that the setting aside of the regularization of the respondents in the writ petition, which included the review petitioners, had nothing to do with the status of the writ petitioner in the sense as to whether they were promotees or direct recruits; rather, the sole basis or ground of interference with the regularization of the private respondents, in the writ petition, including the present review petitioners, was that their appointments and regularization were in violation of the relevant recruitment rules. 25. In the circumstances, as indicated above, it would not be appropriate to say, contends Mr. 25. In the circumstances, as indicated above, it would not be appropriate to say, contends Mr. Mishra, that respondent Nos.4 and 5 hereto had suppressed material facts so that they could get favourable order/direction from the court. 26. However, submits Mr. Mishra, learned senior counsel, the Division Bench, while sitting in appeal against the judgment and order, dated 3.6.2010, of the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 171(AP)/2009, moulded the relief by providing, in its judgment and order, dated 30.4.2012, that the illegally appointed contractual teachers, such as, the review petitioners, shall rank junior to the regularly appointed senior teachers, namely, the writ petitioners. These directions were given by judgment and order, dated 30.4.2012, on the basis of the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision, in State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin, 1987 Supp SCC 401. 27. According to Mr. Mishra, the ratio of this court's decision arrived at its judgment and order, dated 30.4.2012, is not dependant on the status of the writ petitioners, whether they were promotees or direct recruits. In other words, according to Mr. Mishra, learned Senior counsel, irrespective of the fact as to whether respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein were promotees or direct recruits, their appointments -- being not under challenge in the said writ petition -- they were entitled to the reliefs, which the Division Bench had given to all the writ petitioners including the respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein. 28. Reiterating his above submissions, Mr. Mishra, learned senior counsel, has pointed out that setting aside of the regularization of private respondents in the writ petition, including the two review petitioners herein, had nothing to do with the status of the writ petitioners including respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein as to whether they were promotees or direct recruit, but was based solely on the ground that the appointments and regularization of the contractual senior teachers were in wholesome violation of the relevant recruitment rules. In these circumstances, according to Mr. Mishra, learned senior counsel, it is wholly incorrect to allege that respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, as writ petitioners in WP(C) No.171(AP)/2009, suppressed material facts so that they could get favourable order/direction from this court. 29. In these circumstances, according to Mr. Mishra, learned senior counsel, it is wholly incorrect to allege that respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, as writ petitioners in WP(C) No.171(AP)/2009, suppressed material facts so that they could get favourable order/direction from this court. 29. The fact that the moulded reliefs, which the Division Bench, on its own, had given to the appellants, including the two review petitioners herein, by its judgment and order, dated 30.4.2012, was also not dependant on the status of the writ petitioners as to whether they were promotees or direct recruits, can be clearly discerned, points out Mr. Mishra, from the observations, made by the Division Bench, at para 44 of its judgment and order, which read as under : "44. Following the principle of law, as indicated hereinabove, it is possible that without setting aside and quashing the appointment of an irregular appointee, the Court or Tribunal may direct the appointing authority to treat a regular appointee, in service, though appointed later, in point of time, than the irregular appointee, as senior to the irregular appointee. In other words, an irregular appointee, particularly, if his appointment suffers from arbitrariness, mala fide and colourable exercise of powers, cannot be allowed to gain seniority over the regular appointee, for, he cannot be said to belong to the same stream even if the appointment of the irregular appointee is prior in point of time and is not disturbed on account of long period of service, which the irregular appointee might have put in." 30. It has also been contended by Mr. Mishra, learned senior counsel, that the assertion of the review petitioners that they were wholly unaware of the fact that the said two respondents were direct recruits despite having exercised due diligence is wholly incorrect and totally false inasmuch as the provisional seniority list, which was annexed to the writ petition, namely, WP(C) No.171(AP)/2009, clearly mentioned, as against the names of the private respondents herein, that they were not promotees, but direct recruits. 31. 31. The review petitioners, thus, on a bare reading of the writ petition, including the annexures thereto, could know, or must be taken to have known, very well that respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein were direct recruits and not promotees, but even then, they kept quiet during the writ proceedings as well as the proceedings of the writ appeals inasmuch as it did not matter for the decision of the question of legality of appointment and/or regularization of the private respondents, in the writ petition, namely, WP(C) No.171(AP)/2009 (including the present two review petitioners), whether the writ petitioners, who included respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, were direct recruits or promotees. This apart, not only that the seniority list was circulated, the said seniority list stood annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 7(b) series at page 137 of the writ petition, wherein at page 160 and 159, names of respondent Nos.4 and 5 appeared against Serial No.527 and 523 respectively, and a bare look at the said list would show, further points out Mr. Mishra, that respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein were appointed directly as senior teachers and they were not promotees. 32. It therefore, according to Mr. Mishra, the review petitioners had not aware of the fact that respondent. Nosr.4 and 5 herein were direct recruits, then, the review petitioners must be held to be guilty of slackness, rashness and negligence and, in such a situation, they cannot claim to have exercised due diligence and, as a corollary thereto, they must be regarded as having voluntarily accepted the position as stated in para 10 of the writ petition. On this ground alone, contends Mr. Mishra, the review petition deserves to be dismissed. Reference, in this regard, is made by Mr. Mishra to the case of State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sen Gupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612 . 33. It is further pointed out by Mr. Mishra, learned senior counsel, that the affidavit-in-opposition, which the State Government has filed, shows that a Board of Officers was constituted for implementing the directions contained in the judgment and order, dated 30.4.2012, passed by the Division Bench and this Board reported that the Division Bench has directed promotees to the post of senior teachers to be ranked senior to the contractual senior teachers. This was, according to Mr. This was, according to Mr. Mishra, a complete misreading of the judgment and order of the Division Bench and it is because of this misreading of the judgment and order of the Division Bench that the benefit of the moulded reliefs, given by the Division Bench, has not been extended to respondent Nos.4 and 5 inasmuch as the Board of Officers ought to have realized that the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench was relatable to the status of legal appointees vis-a-vis illegal appointees irrespective of the fact as to whether legal appointee was a promotee or a direct recruit. Support for this submission is sought to be derived by Mr. Mishra from para 45 of the judgment and order, dated 30.4.2012, which read as under : "45. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the judgment and order, under appeal, are hereby upheld subject to the modification that the appointments of those, who were impleaded as private respondents in the writ petitions, would remain undisturbed, but they would he made to rank, in the gradation list of Senior (Post-graduate) teachers, junior to the writ petitioners (i.e., the private respondents in these appeals) inasmuch as this would meet, to our mind, the ends of justice and would not adversely affect the rights of the writ petitioners." 34. Though Mr. Mishra has sought to contend that the appointments of private respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein were legal and sustainable in law, we refrain from expressing any definite opinion on the correctness or otherwise of this contention of respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein inasmuch as we are conscious of the fact that in the present review petition, we cannot decide the correctness or legality of the appointments of respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein. This aspect of the review petition has been well appreciated even by Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, as we have already indicated above. 35. Undoubtedly, the correctness and legality of the appointments of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein have to he challenged by the review petitioners or by any one, who wishes to challenge the validity of the appointments of respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, by either instituting a declaratory suit or by instituting appropriate writ proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The scope of the present review petition is extremely limited and we are only required to decide if the review petitioners can be said to have deliberately suppressed material fact that they were direct recruits and thereby misled the court 36. With regard to the above, it is rudimentary to bear in mind that like pleadings in a plaint or a written statement, a writ petition or an affidavit-in-opposition has to be read, as a whole, which would include not only the averments made, but also the annexures to such pleadings. If annexures are looked into, as we must look into, we notice that the seniority list, in the writ petition, namely, WP(C) No.171(AP)/2009, clearly indicate that respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein were direct recruits and not promotees. 37. Coupled with the above, it is also fundamental and basic principle of seeking review that a review petitioner must show that in spite of due diligence, he could not discover a material fact. 38. In the case at hand, when the writ petition, namely, WP(C) No.171(AP)/2009, itself disclosed that respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein were direct recruits/direct appointees and not promotees, there is no question for us to hold, nor can we hold, that respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein had deliberately suppressed the fact that they were direct recruits and not promotees. 39. Since the sole ground for seeking exclusion of respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein from the benefit of the judgment and order, dated 30.4.2012, is that these two respondents had, as writ petitioners, suppressed material facts and misled thereby the court to give them the relief, which they were, otherwise, not entitled to, and when it is apparent, on the face of the record, that the writ petition, namely, WP(C) No.171(AP)/2009, clearly disclosed that the nature of appointments of respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein was as direct recruits and not as promotees, we cannot exclude respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein from the benefit of the judgment and order, dated 30.4.2012. 40. We must, however, hasten to add that what we have observed above shall not mean, and shall not be construed to mean, that we have upheld the appointments of respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein or have held their appointments as legally valid. 40. We must, however, hasten to add that what we have observed above shall not mean, and shall not be construed to mean, that we have upheld the appointments of respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein or have held their appointments as legally valid. Whether their appointments to the posts of senior teachers were or were not legally sustainable were questions, which had not been raised in the writ petition, namely, WT(C) No.171(AP)/2009, nor was this question raised in Writ Appeal No.09(AP)/2010 and, obviously, the correctness and legality of their appointments, as realized by Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, cannot be raised in the present review petition, too. When appointments of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein have not been interfered with and cannot be interfered with in the present review petition, their appointments must remain intact until, otherwise, set aside or quashed in an appropriate proceeding as indicated above. 41. Suffice it to point out that the ground on which the review petitioners sought for exclusion of respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein from the benefit of the moulded reliefs, which the Division Bench had given by its judgment and order, dated 30.4.2012, cannot be acceded to. 42. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this review petition fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 43. Before parting with this review petition, we make it, once again, clear that though we have not interfered with the judgment and order, dated 30.4.2012, and have refused to exclude respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein from the benefit of our decision, dated 30.4.2012, it would remain open to the review petitioners to challenge, if they and so advised, the correctness and/or validity of the appointments of respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein and, if such a proceeding is instituted, the fact that we have not refused to exclude respondent Nos.4 and 5 from the benefit of the moulded reliefs, which we have given by our decision, dated 30.4.2012, would have no material bearing. 44. With the above observations, directions and clarifications, this review petition shall stand disposed of. 45. No order as to costs.