JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) : Heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners in all the three cases. The respondent Nos.1—9 in the WP(C) No.4993/2011, are the teachers and staff of the Rabidaspara Harijan M.V. School and they are represented by the learned Counsel Mr. M. Khan. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. U.K. Nair appears for D.K. Handique (respondent No.11), who served as DEEO/In-charge D.I. of Schools in Cachar district w.e.f 08.02.2002 – 20.06.2007. In the first Review Petition No.112/2012, the respondents/petitioners are represented by the learned Counsel Mr. M. Khan. Most of the respondents (except respondent Nos.37 and 71) in the 2nd Review petition No.126/2012, are represented by the learned Counsel Mr. K.R. Patgiri. 2.1 The challenge in the writ petition is to the judgment dated 7.9.2010 in the Case No. O.A. 66/2007 (Page-92) of the Assam Administrative Tribunal whereby, direction was issued for disbursing the salary to the teacher and staff of the Rabidaspara Harijan M.V. School (hereinafter referred to as the Rabidaspara School). The High Court’s judgment in the Civil Rule No.2734/1996 is also for release of Pay & Allowances for the staff of Rabidaspara School and accordingly, the Review petition 112/2012 is filed to challenge the said direction dated 27.11.2000. 2.2 The Civil Rule 3072/1993 was filed by 85 petitioners, who were appointed on 10.9.1993 but whose appointments came under cloud 2 weeks later, since the earlier approval for the appointment conveyed on 07.07.1993 by the Joint Director of Elementary Education, was kept in abeyance by the W.T. dated 23.09.1993. BACKGROUND 3. The first Civil Rule No.3072/1993 was filed by Md. Jilani Ahmed Laskar and 84 others, who were appointed in various L.P. Schools on 10.09.1993 by the D.I. Schools, Cachar district. The appointment letter(s) [Annexure-F series] mentioned that appointments are being made on the basis of approval granted on 07.07.1993 and the names of the schools were also specified in the appointment letter(s). The appointees joined the respective school(s) on 10.09.1993 itself (date of appointment) by furnishing Joining Report(s) [Annexure-G series] to the school Headmaster(s). But within 2 weeks, the Director’s approval order was kept in abeyance, by the W.T. dated 23.09.1993. The aggrieved appointees accordingly challenged the W.T. and that was stayed by this Court on 14.10.1993. The writ petition was allowed on 07.08.1996 with direction to the authorities, to pay the pay and allowances to the petitioners. But within 2 weeks, the Director’s approval order was kept in abeyance, by the W.T. dated 23.09.1993. The aggrieved appointees accordingly challenged the W.T. and that was stayed by this Court on 14.10.1993. The writ petition was allowed on 07.08.1996 with direction to the authorities, to pay the pay and allowances to the petitioners. The final order being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow, for ready reference :- “The petitioner has been working in the School since 10.9.1993. Thereafter show cause notice was issued to show cause as to why his services were not terminated. As against the said show cause the petitioner approached this court, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass an injunction dated 14.9.93 and the petitioner is continuing in the said service even now as Asstt. Teacher. The respondent have not filed any affidavit in the matter. In view of the same status quo will continue and services of the petitioner be regularized in the normal course. The matter is disposed of. There will be nor order as to costs. The respondents are directed to pay the salary and allowances entitled under the law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order” 4. The 2nd Civil Rule No.2734/1996 was filed by Sisir Kanta Dey and 4 other staff of the Rabidaspara school to claim their current and arrear salary. The Court observed that the services of the petitioners were regularized on 25.12.1995 and accordingly, direction was issued on 27.11.2000 for disbursal of Pay for the school staff. The final order being relevant for the purpose of the present judgment, is extracted hereinbelow :- “Heard Mr. S. Kakati, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. The case of the petitioners’ is that they are working in Rabi Das Para Harijan M.V. School and the school was provincialised in 1975 with effect from 1.5.82. However, they are not receiving their salaries since 1.5.82 although their services were regularized from the aforesaid date vide letter dated 25.12.1995. Therefore, the petitioners approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Civil Rule No.2734 of 1996. The respondents however, failed to file any affidavit in opposition in the last 4 years disputing the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioners approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Civil Rule No.2734 of 1996. The respondents however, failed to file any affidavit in opposition in the last 4 years disputing the claim of the petitioner. This writ petition is therefore disposed of with the direction to release the pay and allowances as per orders passed by the competent authority. The release of salary shall be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the copy of this order is placed before the authorities” 5. The decision in the above tow cases was rendered, in absence of any counter affidavit from the respondents side and therefore the Court erroneously noted that the five litigants in the Civil Rule No.2734/1996 was regularized. Around seven years after the High Court’s verdict, the Government issued direction on 05.09.2002 to regularize the services of the dropped teaching and non-teaching staff of the Rabidaspara School. Consequently, individual regularization orders were issued on 04.12.2002 for those employees, by D.K. Handique, the then DEEO, Cachar. The significant feature of the regularization order is the reference to the High Court verdict in the Civil Rule No.2734/1996. As can be seen from the extracted judgment that the High Court, never issued direction for regularization but the staff of the Rabidaspara School, were nevertheless regularized, by misutilizing the Court’s verdict. FIRST CASE IN TRIBUNAL 6. The direction issued by the High Court on 07.08.1996 for release of salary to the 85 litigants in the CR No.3072/1993 and also for the 5 litigants in the CR No.2734/1996 did not however result in salary payment for the claimants from Cachar district. Thereafter the first case before the Tribunal i.e. the Case No.31 ATA/2007 was filed by around 1271 aggrieved teachers of Cachar district to claim salary. Suspecting the bonafide of the large number of claimants, the Tribunal opined that it is not possible to ascertain whether the appellants were ever appointed, if so where and also whether, they are still serving. Thus, instead of admitting the case, the Tribunal directed the litigants to furnish a detail statement, containing all relevant particulars. The initial order passed by the Tribunal on 21.07.2007 being relevant, is extracted herein below:- “The learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned senior Govt. Advocate as well as the learned Junior Govt. Thus, instead of admitting the case, the Tribunal directed the litigants to furnish a detail statement, containing all relevant particulars. The initial order passed by the Tribunal on 21.07.2007 being relevant, is extracted herein below:- “The learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned senior Govt. Advocate as well as the learned Junior Govt. Advocate are present and heard on the question of admissibility. In the instant case the number of appellant being 1271, it is not readily possible to ascertain as to whether there is a prime facie case from the voluminous document. It is not readily possible to ascertain if the appellant were all appointed, where they appointed, where they are serving at present and when they were regularized, etc. Therefore instead of admitting the appeal the right now the appellants are directed to furnish a detail statement containing the above mentioned particulars in respect of all the appellants and to submit the authority, authorizing appellant namely Sri Nurul Hauzue Laskar to swear and also be file the affidavit as well as the appeal on behalf of all the appellant. Fix 12.9.07 for preliminary hearing.” 7. However the litigants never furnished their particulars and instead opted to withdraw their Case (No.31 ATA/2007) and accordingly, the same was allowed to be withdrawn on 19.09.2007, by the Tribunal. SECOND CASE IN TRIBUNAL 8.1 The litigants from Rabidaspara School then segregated themselves from the larger group and re-approached the Tribunal to claim salary. In the Case No.67 ATA/2007, the Commissioner of the Education (Elementary) Department resisted the claim with the following averments:- “………………… 6. That the deponent states that all appellants of Appeal No.31 ATA/07 including the present appellants’ cases were already examined by the deponent to consider their grievances but not a single appellant was found working in the school when visited. The appellants also failed to produce their appointment orders in this regard. Moreover, there was no record in the D.I. of Schools, Silchar regarding selection of the appellants and no such sanctioning orders or adjustment orders of the Government in the office of the deponent. 7. That the deponent states that all appointment of teachers are fake and fraudulent. The Appeal No.31 ATA/07 was filed to draw huge amount of public money in fraudulent manner. A big racket was working in coordinated manner to give effect to this game of fraudulent drawal of public money. 7. That the deponent states that all appointment of teachers are fake and fraudulent. The Appeal No.31 ATA/07 was filed to draw huge amount of public money in fraudulent manner. A big racket was working in coordinated manner to give effect to this game of fraudulent drawal of public money. And matter was handed over to CID. ………………………….” 8.2 A separate affidavit by the Director of Elementary Education was filed in the Case No.67 ATA/2007 to oppose the litigants’ prayer for salary:- “……………………………. 5. That, in this regards, the former Director of Elementary Education, Assam, (Sri. B.K. Das) had personally visited to enquire into the matter of appointment of 1262 Primary Schools Teachers and 9 nos. of Middle School Teachers and the findings were submitted to the Govt. vide his letter No.EHA.272/2005/184, dated 24.04.2006 (Copy enclosed as Annexure-i) In view of the above, the claim of arrear salary by the appellants cannot be considered. 6. That, at the time of visiting the schools, the DEE, Assam found not a single teacher was working in the school as claimed and the Headmasters of those schools pleaded ignorance of any teachers whom the Investigating Officer searched for. Moreover, the DI of Schools, Silchar also apprised that, no records were available in the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar related with these group of L.P. and Middle School teachers. Therefore, question of seizure of any documents including appointment letter from them does not arise at all. ………………………………” 9.1 The learned Tribunal in the impugned decision recorded that the appellants were not appointed through a regular process in the Rabidaspara School, but erroneously construed that the service of the appellants were regularised in pursuant to the direction of the High Court. Thus the litigants from the Rabidaspara School were held entitled for their regular and arrear salary and on that basis, direction was issued on 07.09.2010 to the authorities, to disburse the dues. 9.2 Since it was projected by the departmental authorities that the concerned staff were not found to be present in the school during the inspection made by the senior officers, the Tribunal left it open for the authorities, to draw up Departmental Proceeding for the errant staff, of the Rabidaspara School. 9.2 Since it was projected by the departmental authorities that the concerned staff were not found to be present in the school during the inspection made by the senior officers, the Tribunal left it open for the authorities, to draw up Departmental Proceeding for the errant staff, of the Rabidaspara School. STATE’S CHALLENGE 10 Aggrieved by the above direction issued by the Administrative Tribunal and noticing that verdict of the High Court was made the justification for the direction, the State not only challenge the Tribunal’s decision but have also applied for review of the two verdicts in the Civil Rule No.2734/1996 relating to the claimants from Rabidaspara School and the Civil Rule No.3072/1993, relating to the 85 claimants, from Cachar district. 11.1 Assailing the direction issued by the High Court and the Tribunal, for disbursal of salary to the respondents, the State’s counsel submits that the claimants were never appointed through a bonafide process envisaged by law and therefore the Government could not have been fastened with the liability, to bear the burden of salary, for the undeserving claimants. Referring to the method of recruitment prescribed by Rule 3 of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the “Recruitment Rules”), the Govt. lawyer submits that the claimants were never selected as envisaged by the recruitment norms and therefore the State’s counsel Mr. P.N. Goswami contends that, salary cannot be paid for those, who do not even claim to have been appointed, through a legitimate process. 11.2 Mr. Goswami argues that when the appointment of the respondents/writ petitioners was not in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, the illegal status of the claimants does not get rectified with passage of time or through undeserving appointment order(s), issued for extraneous consideration and on that basis it is submitted that, the Court should correct the erroneous direction for payment of salary to the undeserving litigants, by reviewing its earlier verdict. 11.3 To demonstrate the collusion of the departmental officers in facilitating the undeserving benefits, Mr. 11.3 To demonstrate the collusion of the departmental officers in facilitating the undeserving benefits, Mr. Goswami submits that the then D.I. of Schools had purportedly issued appointment letters on 10.09.1993 for the 85 litigants in the Civil Rule No.3072/1993 but as can be seen from the joining reports of the appointees, most curiously, each of them managed to join in their respective schools spread across the nooks and corners of Cachar district, on the very same day i.e. 10.09.1993, when the individual appointment orders were issued. The counsel submits that those appointments were illegally made, without selection or even vacancies but only for extraneous consideration. Therefore the W.T. dated 23.09.1993 was issued within 2 weeks of appointment (10.09.1993), to keep in abeyance the approval order for appointment, conveyed earlier on 07.07.1993, by the Joint Director. 11.4 To justify the plea for review, Mr. P.N. Goswami, the learned counsel submits that the High Court is a Court of record as envisaged in Article 215 of the Constitution and is thus possessed of plenary power, to correct erroneous order. The counsel therefore argues that in a case of the present nature, the High Court not only has the power but also a duty, to correct the glaring error in conferring benefits for undeserving litigants. According to Mr. Goswami, the present case has extraordinary ramification and therefore the Court should not be bound by the limits of the review power conferred under the CPC but should exercise its plenary power to correct the erroneous verdict. 11.5 The State’s lawyer refers to the enquiry reports dated 21.01.2006, 24.04.2006 and the last one on 17.07.2012 of the Addl. D.C., to project that the concerned claimants were never appointed through a legitimate process and in fact, they were not found during the inspection of the schools and accordingly it is submitted that the judgment of the Tribunal as also of the High Court, should be revisited to correct the erroneous direction, for the undeserving litigants. RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS 12 On the other hand, Mr. M. Khan, the learned counsel representing the claimants from the Rabidaspara School submits that when the High Court issued direction as far back as on 27.11.2000 in the Civil Rule No.2734/1996 to disburse the salary for the staff of the Rabidaspara School, a Review Petition to undo the long standing verdict should not be entertained by the High Court. M. Khan, the learned counsel representing the claimants from the Rabidaspara School submits that when the High Court issued direction as far back as on 27.11.2000 in the Civil Rule No.2734/1996 to disburse the salary for the staff of the Rabidaspara School, a Review Petition to undo the long standing verdict should not be entertained by the High Court. According to the counsel, the invocation of review power would not be justified, even on a plea of public interest. 13.1 Representing the respondents in the Review Petition No.126/2012, who secured relief from the High Court in the Civil Rule No.3072/1993, Mr. K.R. Patgiri, the learned counsel refers to the regularisation order passed by the D.I. of Schools, Silchar for the 157 L.P. teachers in Cachar district to argue that when the teachers were regularised in vacancies shown in the D.I.’s orders, the resistance to their salary claim by the State, is wholly unjustified and accordingly Mr. Patgiri argues for dismissal of the Review Petition. 13.2 Respondents submit that the approval to the appointment of 91 teachers was conveyed by the Joint Director on 07.07.1993 and thereafter the individual appointment orders were issued on 10.09.1993 and the appointees had immediately joined in their respective schools. Hence the logic of the approval order being kept in abeyance within 2 weeks is questioned and accordingly it is argued by Mr. Patgiri that the direction for disbursal of salary for the 85 litigants in the Civil Rule No.3072/1993 is a fair order, which should be left undisturbed, without entertaining this Review Petition. DISCUSSION 14. The sheet anchor of the argument of the petitioners is that the respondents had not been appointed through any legitimate process and therefore, neither the High Court nor the Administrative Tribunal, should have burdened the State exchequer, with salary obligation for this undeserving group. 15. On the other hand, the respondents contend that entertainment of the Review Petition after so many years of the High Court verdicts, would not be justified under any circumstances since, rightly or wrongly, appointment/ regularisation orders were issued, for the teachers by the authorities. 16. The large group who were appointed on 10.09.1993 by the D.I. of Cachar district, never entered service through a due process envisaged under the Recruitment Rules. 16. The large group who were appointed on 10.09.1993 by the D.I. of Cachar district, never entered service through a due process envisaged under the Recruitment Rules. Their claim to appointment does not flow from any select list prepared under Rule 3 and the only basis for their claim is the illegitimate appointment order(s) issued on 10.09.1993. In the context of salary claim of teachers, who were not appointed under the Recruitment Rules, the Supreme Court in Nazira Begum Lashkar Vs. State of Assam reported in (2001)1 SCC 143 , had declared that such illegal appointees cannot claim equitable benefits and accordingly the dismissal of the claim by the High Court for those, who entered service illegally, was approved by the Supreme Court. This decision shows the erroneous direction issued by the legal forums. 17. The Court cannot also be oblivious of the fact that a large number of so called appointment orders were issued by the local officer at Silchar on 10.09.1993 and although the appointments were made in distant schools, all the appointees could miraculously submit their joining reports in their respective schools spread across the entire Cachar district, on the same day i.e. 10.09.1993. This itself indicates the connivance since it would be impossible for the large group of appointees to receive an appointment orders on a particular day and to join at the appointed schools at a distant places, on the same day. 18. That apart, the enquiry reports of the Director of Elementary Education dated 21.01.2006, 24.04.2006 and of the Addl. D.C., Cachar, dated 17.07.2012 clearly reflect that the claimants were not found present in the schools during the surprise inspection. The illegalities committed by the departmental officials to confer legitimacy on the claimants was also revealed in the reports. To ignore such glaring discrepancies would mean that the illegalities will be allowed to be perpetrated. Therefore corrective measures need to be taken since in the perception of the Court, the cause of justice would otherwise be undermined. 19. In the absence of counter pleading, the High Court erroneously construed the claimants in the Civil Rule No.2734/1996 to be regularised but if they were of the regularised category, as claimed in the Civil Rule No.2734/1996, there should have been no occasion six years later on 05.09.2002, to again regularise the same litigants from the Rabidaspara School. 19. In the absence of counter pleading, the High Court erroneously construed the claimants in the Civil Rule No.2734/1996 to be regularised but if they were of the regularised category, as claimed in the Civil Rule No.2734/1996, there should have been no occasion six years later on 05.09.2002, to again regularise the same litigants from the Rabidaspara School. This shows misrepresentation and also the pro-active role of some officers, to help the undeserving cause of the litigants. 20. In situations where the Court verdict is already acted upon by the other side, the High Court may not entertain a belated Review Petition. But in the present case, the salary to the litigants have not been disbursed notwithstanding the Court verdicts in the Civil Rules No.2734/1996 and in the Civil Rule No.3072/1993 and therefore, the ratio in State of Nagaland Vs. Toulvi Kibami reported in (2003)8 SCC 671 relied upon by the respondents, will have no application in the facts of the present case. 21. As a Court of record, the power of review can be invoked by the High Court in exercise of its plenary power to correct illegal directions. When the verdict of the Court is wrong and the cause of justice is defeated by allowing claims of undeserving litigants, the Court will have to rise to the occasion to order course correction as otherwise, an unjust cause will draw support from the Court’s erroneous orders. Therefore the invocation of review power in the present case, is found to be justified, on the strength of the ratio in M.M. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2000)1 SCC 666 and in Asstt. Commissioner, Income Tax Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited reported in (2008)14 SCC 171. 22. In the perception of the Court, an extraordinary situation has arisen in the present case, where the State is made responsible to pay salary to a group of litigants, who were never appointed/regularised through any legitimate process. In fact, in the Civil Rule No.2734/1996 or in the Civil Rule No.3072/1993, the High Court had no occasion to examine whether the litigants were appointed/regularized, through any legal means process. But only because the counter affidavits were not filed, the direction for disbursal of salary was issued by the High Court. 23. In fact, in the Civil Rule No.2734/1996 or in the Civil Rule No.3072/1993, the High Court had no occasion to examine whether the litigants were appointed/regularized, through any legal means process. But only because the counter affidavits were not filed, the direction for disbursal of salary was issued by the High Court. 23. On the other hand, the State strongly pleaded before the Administrative Tribunal that the claimants were undeserving of any relief by way of direction for payment of salary but only because of the earlier direction given by the High Court for disbursal of salary, the Tribunal disregarded the pleaded case of the State and directed disbursal of salary even for the teachers, who were not found in the school. 24. What is discernible from the materials on record is that while the State failed to file any counter affidavit in the two cases before the High Court, the innocuous Court direction in the Civil Rule No.2734/1996 and the Civil Rule No.3072/1993 were made the basis, for perpetuating the illegalities, by way of appointment/regularization, of the undeserving litigants. When the High Court had not issued any such direction, drawing support therefrom to issue appointment/ regularization orders, would not be warranted. If undeserving benefits are allowed and the State’s exchequer is burdened with huge sum on salary account, on the strength of the Court’s verdict, it would amount to misuse of the judicial forums. 25. The above discussion indicate an extraordinary situation where the Court process is being misutilised for cornering undue benefit. The failure of the State to file counter affidavits in the two Civil Rules had persuaded the Court to give relief. But what is more disturbing is that the departmental authorities went on to regularize/appoint the undeserving litigants, by misconstruing the Court’s verdict. Moreover, connivance of officials are also seen to confer a colour of legitimacy, on the claimants who never entered service through due process and perhaps, never rendered any duties in the schools. 26. In such circumstances the Court is of the considered opinion that the State has made out a case for review of the judgments dated 27.11.2000 and 07.08.1996 passed in Civil Rule Nos.2734/1996 and 3072/1993, respectively. The impugned direction given by the Tribunal on 07.09.2010, is also not sustainable for the same reasons. Accordingly the Review Petitions as well as the writ petition stand allowed and the concerned judgments are recalled. The impugned direction given by the Tribunal on 07.09.2010, is also not sustainable for the same reasons. Accordingly the Review Petitions as well as the writ petition stand allowed and the concerned judgments are recalled. It is ordered accordingly. No cost.