ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, Government, of Assam for the review petitioner and Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. Review petitioner is the State of Assam in the Secondary Education Department which was respondent No. 1 in the related writ petition WP (C) No. 763/2013. Opposite parties were the writ petitioners in the said writ petition. 3. By filing this petition, review petitioner seeks review of final order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the writ court allowing WP (C) No. 763/2013 filed by the opposite parties. 4. Review has been sought for on the ground that report of the Justice (Retd.) S.K. Kar Committee could not be placed before the court; order dated 16.11.2006 passed by a Single Bench of this court in WP (C) No. 644/2004 filed by the opposite parties was also not disclosed by the opposite parties; lastly, there is an order of a Single Bench dated 3.3.2017 passed in WP (C) No. 2112/2013, Sikha Devi vs. State of Assam, whereby and whereunder similar prayer in respect of Sonitpur district was rejected. 5. To place the controversy in proper perspective, it would be appropriate to make a brief reference to the grievance highlighted by the opposite parties in the related writ petition. Case projected by the opposite parties was that they are graduates, some of them having B.Ed. degree, and qualified to be appointed as Assistant Teacher (Graduate) in High Schools/Higher Secondary Schools of the State. A selection was undertaken pursuant to advertisement dated 28.12.1996 for appointment of Assistant Teacher (Graduate) in High Schools/Higher Secondary Schools of the State. Because of ban on appointment issued by the Government, there was delay in finalizing the selection. Subsequently, the ban was lifted on 25.3.2001. It was the case of the opposite parties that they were selected Assistant Teacher (Graduate) for Sivasagar district pursuant to which they were appointed on various dates from 27.3.2001 to 31.3.2001 at a fixed pay of Rs. 2,500 per month. Their appointments were sought to be terminated on 30.7.2001 and 1.8.2001. They had approached this court by filing WP (C) No. 5449/2001. In the said writ petition, an interim order was passed on 6.8.2001 staying the impugned orders with further direction to the State authorities to allow the opposite parties to continue their service. 2,500 per month. Their appointments were sought to be terminated on 30.7.2001 and 1.8.2001. They had approached this court by filing WP (C) No. 5449/2001. In the said writ petition, an interim order was passed on 6.8.2001 staying the impugned orders with further direction to the State authorities to allow the opposite parties to continue their service. Ultimately, the said writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order, dated 26.9.2003 by quashing the impugned orders and directing continuance of service of the opposite parties. 6. Again, show-cause notices were issued to the opposite parties as to why their service should not be terminated on allegation of being excess appointees. Opposite parties then filed WP (C) No. 644/2004. An interim order was passed on 30.1.2004 suspending the show-cause notice. WP (C) No. 644/2004 was subsequently disposed of on 16.11.2006 declining to interfere with the show-cause notices. 7. It is stated that opposite parties had submitted their reply to the show-cause notices. 8. According to the opposite parties, 217 numbers of Assistant Teacher (Graduate) were appointed in the High Schools/Higher Secondary Schools in Sivasagar district which included the petitioners. As per departmental communication of Inspector of Schools, Sivasagar District Circle dated 19.10.2011, it was stated that 217 teachers included 21 teachers appointed against valid sanctioned posts and another 87 teachers working against sanctioned vacant posts. Opposite parties were included in the list of 87 teachers. 9. It was contended that Assistant Teachers of High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools identically placed like the opposite parties in Kamrup, Golaghat and Sonitpur districts were granted regular pay-scale. 10. In the light of the above, related writ petition came to be filed seeking a direction to the State for grant of regular pay-scale to the opposite parties. 11. During the pendency of the writ petition, fixed pay of opposite parties was enhanced to Rs. 15,500 per month vide Government notification dated 19.6.2015. 12. The writ petition was contested by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, who in his counter-affidavit stated that as per report submitted by the Inspector of Schools, Sivasagar District Circle, 202 numbers of teachers were working on fixed pay basis out of whom 108 working against valid sanctioned posts which included the opposite parties. 13. 12. The writ petition was contested by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, who in his counter-affidavit stated that as per report submitted by the Inspector of Schools, Sivasagar District Circle, 202 numbers of teachers were working on fixed pay basis out of whom 108 working against valid sanctioned posts which included the opposite parties. 13. In the course of hearing of the related writ petition, writ court passed the following order on 22.9.2016: “Petitioners are presently serving as Graduate teachers in different high schools in the district of Sivasagar on fixed monthly pay of Rs. 15,500.00. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 28.12.1996 issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam to fill up about 1,000 vacancies in the post of Graduate teacher in high schools/high madrassas in the State of Assam, a selection process was undertaken following which petitioners came to be appointed but their appointments carried fixed pay of Rs. 2,500.00 per month. Be it stated that petitioners came to be appointed as Graduate teachers in Sivasagar district in the year 2001. Such appointments were made following withdrawal of ban on appointment earlier imposed by the State Government. There was some controversy regarding appointment of the petitioners and other similarly situated teachers as a stand was taken by the State that appointments were made in excess of the sanctioned vacancies earmarked for different districts. In respect of Sivasagar district, it was stated that against 24 vacancies about 217 appointments were made. In the above backdrop, a move was undertaken by the State Government to cancel the appointments of such teachers which gave rise to WP (C) No. 5449/2001, Manoj Konwar vs. State of Assam. A Single Bench of this court vide judgment and order dated 26.9.2003 came to the conclusion that selection was valid and consequently the select list was held to be unassailable. A categorical finding was recorded that appointments of the petitioners was preceded by a valid selection. Finally the respondents were directed to ensure that petitioners were allowed to function in their posts and to discharge their duties. It was further directed that salary and all service benefits be sanctioned and released to the petitioners. Following the aforesaid direction of the Single Bench, writ petitions were filed by similarly placed teachers belonging to Golaghat, Kamrup, Sonitpur and other districts. It was further directed that salary and all service benefits be sanctioned and released to the petitioners. Following the aforesaid direction of the Single Bench, writ petitions were filed by similarly placed teachers belonging to Golaghat, Kamrup, Sonitpur and other districts. Those writ petitions were allowed by directing the State Government in the Education Department to make payment to such teachers as per pay scale indicated in the advertisement. It is stated that following such orders of this court teachers of those districts have been paid salary in the appropriate pay scale. Only the petitioners have been left out. In the meanwhile, an enquiry was made regarding holding of sanctioned vacant posts by the petitioner pursuant to letter dated 27.11.2008 of the Education Department, Government of Assam. Following the same, it was verified by the Inspector of Schools, Sivasagar District Circle who thereafter informed the Director of Secondary Education, Assam that out of the 193 numbers of Graduate teacher appointed in Sivasagar district, 87 were found working against sanctioned vacant posts. A list of 87 such teachers were annexed which included the present petitioners. Government of Assam in the Secondary Education Department has issued notification dated 19.6.2015 enhancing the fixed pay from Rs. 2,500 to Rs. 15,500 per month to 107 Graduate teachers of Sivasagar district which includes all the petitioners. Director of Secondary Education, Assam in his affidavit has admitted that as per latest report submitted by the Inspector of Schools, Sivasagar District Circle on 9.11.2011, 202 numbers of teachers are working on fixed pay out of whom 108 are working against valid sanctioned posts which includes the petitioners and 94 against non-sanctioned posts. Question for consideration is when similarly placed teachers have been granted regular pay scale in other districts, whether withholding of the same to the petitioners would be justified in the face of judicial determination that petitioners were appointed following a valid selection process and subsequent finding by the departmental authority that they are continuing in service against sanctioned vacant posts? Ancillary to the above question would be as to whether payment of fixed pay @ Rs. 15,500 per month to the petitioners working against sanctioned vacant posts since the last more than 15 years and denying them the regular pay scale would be justified? At this stage, Ms. Ancillary to the above question would be as to whether payment of fixed pay @ Rs. 15,500 per month to the petitioners working against sanctioned vacant posts since the last more than 15 years and denying them the regular pay scale would be justified? At this stage, Ms. P. Bhattacharya, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department prays for a short adjournment to obtain up-to-date instructions from the Department.” 14. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing on the subsequent date, learned standing counsel submitted that further instructions were not forthcoming. Referring to the order dated 26.9.2003 passed in WP (C) No. 5499/2001, writ court held that there was already a clear judicial finding that select list on the basis of which opposite parties were appointed was valid; appointments of the opposite parties were preceded by a valid selection. Such direction by the Single Bench had attained finality as there was no appeal against such order. In the above backdrop, writ petition was allowed by directing the State to release regular pay-scale to the opposite parties as Graduate Teachers of High Schools with effect from the date of joining. Relevant portion of the order dated 16.12.2016 is as under: “6. A perusal of the order dated 22.9.2016 as extracted above, would go to show that a Single Bench of this court in WP (C) No. 5499 of 2001 (Manoj Kumar v. State of Assam), by the judgment and order dated 26.9.2003, had recorded a clear finding that the select list on the basis of which petitioners were appointed is valid; appointments of the petitioners were preceded by a valid selection. Not only that, Single Bench directed the respondents to ensure that petitioners were allowed to discharge their duties as Graduate Teacher in their respective High Schools in the district of Sivasagar and to pay them their salary and other allowances. 7. It is admitted at the Bar that the said judgment and order has since attained finality as no appeal was preferred against the said judgment. It is also seen that based on the aforesaid judgment and order, other writ petitions which were filed by similarly situated Graduate Teachers of High Schools, serving in different districts were allowed and following the orders passed by this court, those Graduate Teachers have been granted their pay as per pay scale, including arrears. It is also seen that based on the aforesaid judgment and order, other writ petitions which were filed by similarly situated Graduate Teachers of High Schools, serving in different districts were allowed and following the orders passed by this court, those Graduate Teachers have been granted their pay as per pay scale, including arrears. That being the position, there cannot be any justifiable reason to deny regular pay scale to the petitioners from the dates of their appointment. The administrative authorities cannot sit in appeal over a finding recorded by the court. If they had any grievance, they could have moved the higher forum, but they chose not to do so. In such circumstances and having regard to the order of this court, denial of regular pay scale to the petitioners would not only be without any justification but would also be illegal. 8. Consequently, both the questions framed by this court in the order dated 22.9.2016 are answered in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, respondents are now directed to release the regular pay scale of the petitioners as Graduate Teacher of High School w.e.f. the dates of their joining. The same shall be done within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If there is failure to pay the pay-scale of the petitioners as directed above within the aforesaid period, the arrear amount would carry interest @ 6% per annum, which may be recovered from the erring officials. 9. Writ petition is accordingly allowed with cost of Rs. 10,000 to be paid by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam.” 15. Before adverting to the grounds of review, it would be apposite to dwell at some length on the judgment and order dated 26.9.2003 passed in WP (C) No. 5449/2001. After exhaustively hearing the matter and perusal of the record, learned Single Judge had not only found that the decision to terminate the service of the opposite parties was in complete violation of the principles of natural justice as the said decision was taken without affording any reasonable opportunity of hearing, but also held that the selection process leading to finalization of the select list preceding the appointments could not be held to be invalid. The selection was held to be valid and the select list unassailable. The selection was held to be valid and the select list unassailable. Appointments of the opposite parties were held to be preceded by a valid selection. This was the clear and categorical finding of the Single Bench in paragraph 24 of the said judgment. While setting aside the orders of termination, positive direction was issued to allow the opposite parties to continue in service with their pay and all other incidental benefits. As already discussed, State accepted this judgment and did not appeal before the higher forum. Thus, this judgment has attained finality. 16. Question for consideration before the writ court was entitlement of the opposite parties to regular pay-scale of Graduate Teacher of High Schools, which was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the opposite parties. This issue can also be examined from a slightly different perspective. In State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, 2017 (1) GLT (SC) 47, Supreme Court was examining the issue as to whether temporarily engaged employees (daily wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like) are entitled to minimum of the regular pay-scale along with dearness allowance (as revised from time-to-time) on account of their performing the same duties, which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against sanctioned posts. After elaborately discussing the legal position, including the constitutional principle of “equal pay for equal work” Supreme Court held that all the concerned temporary employees in the cases before it would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (in the regular pay-scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post. But this is on the merit of the claim of the opposite parties which has already been decided in their favour by the writ court as above. 17. Reverting back to the grounds of review, insofar Justice (retired) S.K. Kar Committee report is concerned, the Committee was constituted on 20.5.2006 to enquire into appointment of excess teachers under the Directorates of Elementary Education and Secondary Education from 1996 to 2006. Report was submitted in the year 2009. Action taken report on the said report was prepared on 11.12.2009. From the enquiry report as well as the action taken report, it is clear that there is no specific report regarding appointment of the opposite parties. The report does not mention about appointment of the opposite parties as illegal or excess appointees. Report was submitted in the year 2009. Action taken report on the said report was prepared on 11.12.2009. From the enquiry report as well as the action taken report, it is clear that there is no specific report regarding appointment of the opposite parties. The report does not mention about appointment of the opposite parties as illegal or excess appointees. Perhaps this could not have been done because of the judicial determination as above. 18. Regarding subsequent order of Single Bench dated 16.11.2006 passed in WP (C) No. 644/2004 filed by the opposite parties themselves, it is seen that opposite parties had mentioned about filing of this case in paragraphs 9 and 15 of the related writ petition in detail. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was suppression of material facts by the opposite parties. Even if we consider the order dated 16.11.2006, all that this order said is that the opposite parties were at liberty to submit reply to the show-cause notices whereafter appropriate orders could be passed by the departmental authority. It is the stand of the opposite parties that they had submitted their replies to the show-cause notices but nothing has been done till date. 19. The last of the order on the basis of which review is sought for is dated 3.3.2017 passed by a Single Bench of this court in WP (C) No. 2112/2013, Sikha Devi vs. State of Assam. Firstly, this order was passed on 3.3.2017 whereas order sought to be reviewed was passed prior to that on 16.12.2016. Therefore, order dated 16.12.2016 cannot be reviewed on the basis of a subsequent order, i.e., order dated 3.3.2017. That apart from a perusal of the order dated, 3.3.2017, it appears that neither of the parties thereto had brought to the notice of the Single Bench deciding Sikha Devi (supra) about the order dated 16.12.2016. The specific finding recorded by the Single Bench in the judgment and order dated 26.9.2003 passed in WP (C) No. 5449/2001 was also not placed in detail before the Single Bench. 20. From the above, it is evident that the review petitioner wants a rehearing of the writ petition, which is not the purport and object of review jurisdiction. The specific finding recorded by the Single Bench in the judgment and order dated 26.9.2003 passed in WP (C) No. 5449/2001 was also not placed in detail before the Single Bench. 20. From the above, it is evident that the review petitioner wants a rehearing of the writ petition, which is not the purport and object of review jurisdiction. Long back in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. State of A.P. AIR 1964 SC 1372 , Supreme Court had clarified that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise; this position continues till date as the Supreme Court has held in the recent case of Sasi vs. Aravindakishan Nair, (2017) 4 SCC 692 that in exercise of review jurisdiction, it is not permissible for a decision to be “reheard and corrected” by treating it to be an erroneous decision. 21. Having regard to the above, court is of the unhesitant view that no case for review is made out. Review petition is accordingly dismissed.