JUDGMENT : Haripal, J. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the Ext.P2 letter/order, issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to consider the Ext.P3 application and hear the Ext.P1 appeal afresh within a definite time frame. 2. Petitioner is the hereditary trustee of Olappamanna mana group devaswom, which has 32 temples spread over four taluks of Palakkad District. The temples are classified as 'B', 'C' and 'D' grades. There was a scheme adopted by the H R & C Department on 22.02.1957 treating all the temples under the Olappamanna mana group as a single unit. The scheme was modified by the Malabar Devaswom Board, hereinafter referred to as 'the Board', as a separate unit. According to the petitioner, arrears of pay to all employees of C and D grades temples were allowed only upto December 2010. But the 3rd respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of the Board declined arrears of pay to such employees from January 2011 to December 2015. It is an illegality. Those employees are entitled to get arrears of salary of the above stated period, spanning over five years. Petitioner then filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, Deputy Commissioner on 06.09.2018. The appeal was posted for consideration on 26.10.2018, after issuing notice to the respondent. But, without hearing the petitioner or his counsel, the 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal by Ext.P2 order dated 03.10.2018. Knowing about the dismissal, his counsel submitted the Ext.P3 application on 26.10.2018 to reconsider/review the decision. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after lapse of nearly two years, the application is not being taken up for hearing, the delay is violative of his legal, fundamental and Constitutional rights. That prompted him to move this Court seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board, representing respondents 1 to 3. 4. After going through the materials placed before us, we are convinced that valid grounds are not made out to grant any relief to the petitioner. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board, representing respondents 1 to 3. 4. After going through the materials placed before us, we are convinced that valid grounds are not made out to grant any relief to the petitioner. Here the core issue is, whether the Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent is violative of any law and whether the Deputy Commissioner can be directed to consider and dispose of the Ext.P3 application for review. 5. As rightly suggested by the learned Standing Counsel, the very application for review is not maintainable. It is the settled principle of law that jurisdiction for review is a creation of the statute. It is a well settled rule that a tribunal has no power to review its earlier order, unless the same is specifically conferred on it by the statute [see M/s.Mehar Singh Nanak Chand v. Shri Naunihal Thakar Das and others ( 1973 (3) SCC 731 ). Similarly, in the decision reported in R.R. Varma and others v. Union of India and others [ 1980 (3) SCC 402 ] it is held that power to review must be conferred by statute either specifically or by necessary implication. A Court or Tribunal has no inherent power of review. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by implication. [See the decisions in Patel Chunibhai Dajiban v. Narayana Rao Khanda Rao Jambeker ( AIR 1965 SC 1457 ); Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh and others ( AIR 1966 SC 641 ); State of M.P. and others v. Balkishan Nathani and others ( AIR 1967 SC 394 ); Patel Narshi Thakershi and others v. Pradyuman Singhji Arjun Singhji ( AIR 1970 SC 1273 ) etc.]. 6. Of course, Section 58 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act empowers the Deputy Commissioner to frame scheme. The Ext.P1 document indicates that the 2nd respondent had framed scheme on 30.04.2015 in the matter of temples under the trusteeship of Olappamanna mana group in which the petitioner is the hereditary trustee. The grievance of the petitioner is that arrear salary of employees in C and D temples for the period from 2011 to 2015 was denied by the 3rd respondent, against which he moved an appeal, which was dismissed by the 2nd respondent behind his back. The grievance of the petitioner is that arrear salary of employees in C and D temples for the period from 2011 to 2015 was denied by the 3rd respondent, against which he moved an appeal, which was dismissed by the 2nd respondent behind his back. That order has been sought to be reviewed by the 3rd respondent. But, as a matter of fact, the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, which governs the parties, does not confer any such power of review to the Deputy Commissioner. On that score alone, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner are liable to be declined. 7. It is also settled by authorities that, to justify exercise of review of jurisdiction, the error must be self-evident. Even if there was no correct appreciation of facts and law in the earlier decision, parties can be left to challenge the decision in an appeal and not by way of review. (see the decision in Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra ( 2019 (2) KHC 107 ). 8. The Act provides hierarchy of officers for its working. Therefore, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Commissioner, who is the superior officer, with appropriate reliefs, against any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Even other wise, Section 61 of the Act empowers any person aggrieved by any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner to approach the Commissioner with an appeal. 9. That means, under the Act, the petitioner is not left without any remedy. If he has any grievance, it is open to approach the Commissioner seeking appropriate reliefs. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. No costs.