JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Suman Shyam, J. Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General Assam assisted by Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Secondary) Department, appearing for the review petitioners. We have also heard Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. P. Borah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 as well as Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel, representing the respondent Nos.3, 4, 7, 8, 14, 23, 24 and 35. None appears for the other respondents. 2. By filing this Petition, the State of Assam is before us seeking review of the order dated 04.04.2016 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.360/2014 dismissing the appeal as having been rendered infructuous. Since the Review Petition has been keenly contested, hence, a brief recital of the factual background of the case is deemed necessary. 3. In the year 2010, the Government of Assam in the Education Department had decided to engage additional teachers in the core subjects of English, Social Science, Mathematics and General Science in the Secondary Schools in Assam under a scheme viz. “Scheme to Strengthen and Improve the Quality of Secondary Education in Assam” (for short “the Scheme”). The additional teachers were to be appointed on contractual basis for 11 months except in BTAD areas, North Cachar Hills and Karbi Anglong Districts. Accordingly, a Notification dated 10.06.2010 was issued paving the way for making such contractual appointments wherein it was motioned that the teachers so engaged shall have no claim for regular appointment against any of the vacancies existing in the school. 4. With a view to implement the Notification dated 10.06.2010, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, had circulated another Notification dated 14.06.2010 instructing all the Principals/Headmasters of Government/Provincialised Schools through the jurisdictional School Inspectors to ensure that the process of selection of the contractual teachers is completed within 10.07.2010. Accordingly, a selection process was held which culminated in the appointment of 7764 contractual teachers including the respondents here-in. 5. The recruitment of teachers in the Secondary Schools of Assam and their service conditions are governed by the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Services Rules, 2003 (herein after referred to as the “Rules of 2003”). Accordingly, a selection process was held which culminated in the appointment of 7764 contractual teachers including the respondents here-in. 5. The recruitment of teachers in the Secondary Schools of Assam and their service conditions are governed by the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Services Rules, 2003 (herein after referred to as the “Rules of 2003”). These Rules, framed in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309, originally did not contain any provision prescribing the requirement of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) as an eligibility condition for appointment as a Teacher. However, the Rules of 2003 were amended in the year 2012 providing that the minimum qualification of the teachers must be in accordance with the NCTE regulations and additionally, all candidates would be required to appear and pass Special Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) by securing 60% marks in case of General category candidates and minimum 50% in case of SC/ST/OBC/physically handicapped candidates. The requirement of qualifying in the TET was inserted in the form of Rule 10 which came into effect from 10.07.2012. By the amendment of the Rules of 2003, a provision in the form of Rule 8(6) was also inserted so as to give preference to the contractual teachers working under the “Scheme” by awarding them upto 50 bonus marks for their service rendered as contractual teachers. 6. On 30.06.2014, the Member-Secretary, TET Empowered Committee, had issued an advertisement notice notifying the dates for conducting a Special TET of High School level for the contractual teachers engaged under the “Scheme”. The advertisement notice dated 30.06.2014 was put to challenge by the respondent No.1 association by filing WP(C) No.3594/2014 before this court, inter- alia, contending that since they had been appointed after facing a rigorous selection process, they cannot again be subjected to TET for the purpose of regularisation of their services as teachers. WP(C) No.3594/2014 was allowed by the judgment and order dated 26.09.2014 whereby the learned Single Judge had held that members of the respondent No.1 association were not required to appear in the special TET. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.09.2014 the State of Assam had preferred Writ Appeal No.360/2014. During the pendency of the appeal, the Cabinet took a decision on 28-02-2016 to regularise the services of all the contractual teachers without insisting on TET qualification. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.09.2014 the State of Assam had preferred Writ Appeal No.360/2014. During the pendency of the appeal, the Cabinet took a decision on 28-02-2016 to regularise the services of all the contractual teachers without insisting on TET qualification. Accordingly, Office Memorandum dated 03.03.2016 was issued by the Government, inter-alia, providing that the contractual teachers, who were in possession of qualification as per NCTE regulation, would be regularised. 8. When the Writ Appeal No.360/2014 came up for consideration before this Court on 04.04.2016, a submission was made by the learned departmental counsel that in view of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 03.03.2016, the Appeal had become infructuous. Taking note of the aforesaid submission of the departmental counsel, the appeal was closed as infructuous by the order dated 04.04.2016. It is the order dated 04.04.2016 in respect of which the State is seeking a review. 9. The case of the Review Petitioners, as projected through the pleading, is that on 28.02.2016 the Cabinet took a decision to regularise the services of the contractual teachers without insisting on TET qualification and therefore, the Office Memorandum dated 03.03.2016 was issued. Accordingly, a concession was made by the learned departmental counsel before this court which led to the closure of the Writ Appeal treating the same as infructuous. However, when the issue of implementation of the OM dated 03-03-2016 came up, the Government found that the Cabinet decision dated 28.02.2016 as well as the OM dated 03.03.2016 were not in conformity with the provisions of the amended “Rules of 2003”. Not only that, it was found that implementation of the OM dated 03-03-2016 would lead to violation of several orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as of this Court. Having realised the mistake on the part of the government in issuing the OM dated 03-03-2016, the State has approached this Court by filing the Review Petition. 10. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Assam, has disarmingly submitted that there is no error in the order of the Court but the review is being sought on the ground that the concession given by the departmental counsel was based on a mistake committed by the State in issuing the OM dated 03-03-2016. Mr. 10. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Assam, has disarmingly submitted that there is no error in the order of the Court but the review is being sought on the ground that the concession given by the departmental counsel was based on a mistake committed by the State in issuing the OM dated 03-03-2016. Mr. Saikia submits that regular appointment to the post of teacher in the secondary schools has to be in accordance with the provisions of the “Rules of 2003” as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi (3) [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ] and the Full Bench decision of this court in the case of Jitendra Kalita and Others Vs State of Assam and Others [ 2006(2) GLT 654] but the OM dated 03-03-2016, being in clear violation of the Rules and the orders of the court, was not capable of being implemented. Mr Saikia submits that the State is conscious about the claim of the contractual teachers for regular absorption and that is the reason behind insertion of Rule 8(6) in the Service Rules. 11. Mr. Saikia has also invited our attention to the order dated 14.12.2016 passed in I.A. No.188/2016 arising out of WP(C) No.5660/2016, whereby the application filed by the State seeking leave to withdraw the OM dated 03.03.2016 was rejected by the learned Single Judge as a result of which the State has preferred Writ Appeal No.23/2016 which is pending before this Court. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that since the judgment and order dated 26.09.2014 passed in WP(C) No.3594/2014 deals with an issue coming under the sweep of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2003 i.e. the requirement of TET as an eligibility condition for appointment to the post of teacher in the secondary schools, the order dated 04.04.2016 be recalled and the Writ Appeal No.360/2014 be heard on merit. 12. In support of his arguments Mr. 12. In support of his arguments Mr. Saikia has placed reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India and another vs. Netaji Cricket Club and others, reported in (2005)4 SCC 741 and State of Rajasthan and another vs. Surendra Mohnot and others, reported in (2014)14 SCC 77 , to contend that the plea taken by the State would come within the definition of “sufficient cause” meriting recall of the order dated 04.04.2016. 13. Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned senior counsel representing the respondents, on the other hand, has strenuously argued that the review petition is mis-conceived in as much as the purpose sought to be achieved thereunder does not have any nexus with the withdrawal of the OM dated 03.03.2016 since the said Office Memorandum was neither the subject matter of WP(C) No.3594/2014 nor is it under challenge in any proceeding. According to Mr Goswami, it was always open for the State to review the Cabinet decision and modify the OM dated 03-03-2016 on its own and for that this review application was un-necessary. 14. Mr. Goswami further submits that the order dated 04.04.2016 was passed on the basis of submission made by the departmental counsel and therefore, there is no error in the order. The learned senior counsel submits that the underlying principles in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case permitting review of the order. Mr. Goswami has also advanced elaborate arguments supporting the judgment and order dated 26-09-2014 but since those are on the merit of the appeal, we do not consider it necessary to refer to those arguments at this stage. 15. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 16. On 04.04.2016, when the Writ Appeal No.360/2014 came up for consideration, this Court had passed the following order:- “(Ajit Singh, CJ) Mr. S. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Secondary) Department Assam, for the appellants and Mr. A. M. Buzar Baruah, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B P Borah, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Mr. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Secondary) Department, fairly states that in view of the Office Memorandum dated 3.3.2016, the present appeal has become infructuous. S. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Secondary) Department Assam, for the appellants and Mr. A. M. Buzar Baruah, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B P Borah, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Mr. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Secondary) Department, fairly states that in view of the Office Memorandum dated 3.3.2016, the present appeal has become infructuous. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as having rendered infructuous.” 17. A perusal of the order dated 04-04-2016 leaves no manner of doubt that the Writ Appeal was closed merely on a concession of the departmental counsel without there being any consideration of the matter on merit. As noted above, the stand of the State in the Review Petition is that on a revisit of the Cabinet decision dated 28.02.2016 as well as the OM dated 03.03.2016 it transpired that implementation of the same would amount to violation of the “Rules of 2003” as well as several judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court and this Court. Therefore, the core question that would arise for consideration in this review petition is as to whether the aforesaid ground taken by the State would be a valid ground to review/recall the order dated 04.04.2016. 18. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the principles embodied in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure would come into play while considering an application for review. Under the said provision, an application for review would lie not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence but also when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record or if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason. Interpreting the words “sufficient reason” as in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India (supra) that the said expression would be wide enough to include even a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an Advocate. 19. Interpreting the words “sufficient reason” as in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India (supra) that the said expression would be wide enough to include even a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an Advocate. 19. In the case of Shivdeo Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909 the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had observed that the power of review inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it and there is nothing that precludes a High Court from exercising the power of review in such matters. 20. Likewise, in the case of State of Rajasthan (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after discussing the various judicial pronouncements on the power of review, had summed up by observing that when self evident errors come to the notice of the Court and are not rectified in exercise of review jurisdiction or jurisdiction to recall, which is a facet of plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, a grave miscarriage of justice occurs. 21. In the present case, it is not the plea of the review petitioners that the order dated 04.04.2016 suffers from any error but their stand is that the concession which led to closure of the Writ Appeal was based on a mistaken understanding of fact and law, which, having been detected subsequently, the State is desirous of correcting the situation. It is in furtherance of such objective that a prayer has been made for recalling the order dated 04.04.2016 and for hearing the Writ Appeal on merit. There is nothing on record to indicate that the stand of the State is factually incorrect. 22. A perusal of the judgment under review goes to show that the learned Single Judge had issued a direction for regularisation of the service of the contractual teachers without subjecting them to TET, which according to the review petitioners, was impermissible under the Rules. The State does not disown the submission made by the departmental counsel but contends that the same was a mistake. The State does not disown the submission made by the departmental counsel but contends that the same was a mistake. Having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India (supra) we are of the opinion that a bonafide concession made by a litigant or its counsel that subsequently turns out to be legally untenable, can be a valid ground for reviewing an order if it can be shown that such concession was founded on a mistake of fact or law and was the sole basis of the court order terminating the lis. A mistake of such a nature, in our view, would come within the sweep of “sufficient reason” as mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 23. In the present case the State has come forward with the review petition admitting its mistake in issuing the OM dated 03-03-2016, which forms the very basis of the concession made by the departmental counsel leading to the order dated 04-04-2016. As such, rejection of the review application would amount to permitting the judgment and order dated 26-09-2014 to attain finality by default, which in our opinion, would lead to miscarriage of justice. We are also conscious of the fact that Writ Appeal No 23/2016 preferred by the present review petitioners assailing the order dated 14-12-2016 passed by the learned Single Judge declining leave to withdraw the OM dated 03-03-2016 is pending disposal before this court. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Writ Appeal 360/2014 preferred by the State also deserves to be heard and decided on merit. 24. For the reasons stated herein above, we allow the Review Petition. Consequently, the order dated 04.04.2016 passed in Writ Appeal No.360/2014 stands recalled. The Writ Appeal No 360 of 2014 is restored to its original file and be now listed for orders along with Writ Appeal No.23 of 2016. There would be no order as to cost.