JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Assam and Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6. 2. The background fact of the present Review Petition:- I. The present review petition is filed seeking review of the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2022, passed in WP(C) No. 6279/2022. II. The WP(C) No. 6279/2022 was filed assailing selection and appointment of respondent Nos. 5 to 14 therein as Laboratory Technician in the Tezpur Medical College and Hospital, Tezpur, Assam. The present review petitioners were arrayed as respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 in the aforesaid writ petition. The present review petitioner were also filed affidavit-in-opposition in the said writ petition. III. The appointment of the aforesaid respondents were challenged basically on the ground that the respondents in the writ petition who were selected and appointed as Laboratory Technician were not having the qualification as required in terms of Advertisement dated 19.02.2011. IV. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court by Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2022 uphold the appointment of respondent Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. The appointment of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, were set aside and quashed being illegal and so far relating to the present review petitioners i.e. respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9, it was directed that the Director of Medical Education, Assam to verify their certificates and to determine whether the institutions from where the said respondents/present review petitioners had obtained their qualifications were recognized on the last date of filing application pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.02.2011. And if such institutions were not recognised institutes by Government of Assam, the services of the Review Petitioners were to be terminated. V. Being aggrieved by such Judgment and Order, the present review petitioners preferred a Writ Appeal being WA No. 345/2022 before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. The petitioners contended before the Hon’ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal that the recruitment process in question is governed by the Assam Laboratory Technician Service Rules, 2012 and the Rules inter alia provides for authentication of necessary testimonials including experience certificate. The petitioners contended before the Hon’ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal that the recruitment process in question is governed by the Assam Laboratory Technician Service Rules, 2012 and the Rules inter alia provides for authentication of necessary testimonials including experience certificate. However, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court observed that the said point was not raised before this Court during the proceeding of the writ petition, which was also admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of such observation, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to approach this Court by way a Review Petition, and accordingly, did not press the Writ Appeal at that stage. Accordingly, the Review Petition was filed and matter was heard at length by this Court on 10.11.2022 and 18.11.2022. 3. Argument advanced for the review petitioners:- Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the review petitioners submits the following:- I. The Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2022, passed in WP(C) No.6279/2022, proceeded with without taking into account the recruitment rules holding the field, i.e. The Assam Laboratory Technician Service Rule, 2012 (herein after referred to as the Rules of 2012). He further contends that had the counsels for the parties drawn attention of the aforesaid Rules of 2012 during the hearing of the aforesaid writ petition before this Court, there was every possibility that the outcome of the said Judgment would have been different in respect of the present review petitioners and in that event, this Court would have been pleased not to interfere with the selection and appointment of the present review petitioners. Therefore, the present review petition squarely falls within the grounds contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. II. The Rule 8(1) of the Rules, 2012 provides for authentication of certificates by the Director of Medical Education of Assam. There could not have been any occasion of further verification of their degrees as directed by this Court, instead, had that Rule been brought into the notice of this Court, this Court would not have interfered with their selection as their candidature and certificates has already been authenticated by the competent authority under the Rules of 2012. III. The word used in Rule 8(1) of Rules, 12, is “authentication”. Authentication refers to something which is capable of being accepted as genuine. In support of such contention, Mr. III. The word used in Rule 8(1) of Rules, 12, is “authentication”. Authentication refers to something which is capable of being accepted as genuine. In support of such contention, Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel relies on the definition of “authenticity” and “authentication” given in the Black Law Dictionary, 10th Edition and argues that when their certificates had already been authenticated, such certificates needs to be treated as genuine and verification of reorganisation is not necessary. IV. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel further submits that the Director of Medical Education, Assam approved the selection of the review petitioners in exercise of power under Rule 6(e) of the Rules of 2012 and if the approval given under Rule 6(3) of the Rules of 2012 is read conjointly with Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2012, the necessary implication would be that the moment the Director of Medical Education, Assam approved the selection of the review petitioners, the Director of Medical Education, Assam, had also authenticated the certificate of the review petitioners obtained from private institutions and thereby accepted the certificate of the review petitioners as genuine. Therefore, had this two Rules been brought to the notice of this Court during the course of hearing of the writ petition, the result would have different and accordingly, there is error apparent on the face of the record. V. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel further contends that the principles underlying the doctrine of ex post facto approval comes to the aid of the review petitioners herein. In absence of an approval the act holds good unless the same is disapproved by the competent authority. In the present case, the DME, Assam not having rejected the certificates of the review petitioners would hold good by virtue of the deemed authentication in view of the approval under rule 6(e) by the said authority. In support of his contention, Mr. Talukdar relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.P. Singh & Anr. reported in (2003) 4 SCC 239 and Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. Vs. The State of U.P. reported in (2016) 12 SCC 613. The learned counsel further contends that though the certificates of the review petitioners, at the time of submission of their application were not authenticated by the DME, Assam, but the subsequent approval and the ‘deemed authentication’ cured the defect, if any in the selection of the review petitioners. VI. Mr. The State of U.P. reported in (2016) 12 SCC 613. The learned counsel further contends that though the certificates of the review petitioners, at the time of submission of their application were not authenticated by the DME, Assam, but the subsequent approval and the ‘deemed authentication’ cured the defect, if any in the selection of the review petitioners. VI. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel also submits that when the statue employs a particular word in an enactment, it has to be understood that the same has been used by the legislature in coherence to the dictionary meaning and the legal connotation it carries with it. The expression “authentication” employed by the rule making authority in rule 8 has been apparently misconstrued by the Enquiry Committee. The said expression has been understood by the Enquiry Committee at par with recognition of an institution by the Government, which is not the intention of the rule making authority. The rule making authority under the Rules of 2012 did not expressly provide that the authentication is for the purpose of recognition by the Government. If the meaning attributed by the Enquiry Committee is accepted, the same would be incoherent to the literal meaning of the word “authentication”. Therefore, such an interpretation is liable to be discarded. The golden principle of statutory interpretation is that the Court would go by the literal meaning of an enactment. The learned counsel further contends that in absence of any express provision, this Court may read into the rules to create any ‘casus’ when there is really none. Therefore, in view of the same, the findings of the Enquiry Committee that the DME, Assam should authenticate the private institution “whether government recognised or not” is fundamentally erroneous. Therefore, the same has no bearing in the case of the petitioners. VII. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel further contends that the Rules of 2012 provides for relaxation. Rule 23 of the said Rules provides for relaxation in case of hardship in any particular case. The Hon’ble Apex Court in J.C. Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in (1990) 2 SCC 189 , approved the act of relaxation in case of any hardship being faced by the candidate due to the rigor of any provision of the recruitment rules. The Hon’ble Apex Court in J.C. Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in (1990) 2 SCC 189 , approved the act of relaxation in case of any hardship being faced by the candidate due to the rigor of any provision of the recruitment rules. Having regard to the facts of the case and also the long duration of service rendered by the review petitioners, it is fit case where this Court may be pleased to direct the Government to relax the rules in case of the review petitioners. The relaxation provision being part of the said Rules of 2012, therefore, the reviewing Court assumes the power to direct the Government to consider relaxation in the present case. That apart, the certificates of the review petitioner’s No. 2 and 3 not being from outside the State of Assam, the requirement of authentication would apply in their case only after relaxation of rules 8. Therefore, to mitigate the hardship being faced by the review petitioners, the invocation of rule 23 of the said Rules of 2012 by the Government is very much essential. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court need to direct the Government to appropriately relax the Rules of 2012 by invoking rule 23 thereof for the purpose of mitigating the hardship being faced by the review petitioners, submits Mr. Talukdar. VIII. The review petitioners have by this time served for a period of about 10 years pursuant to their selection. They have already changed their position to their detriment. Many things in their life have changed by this time. The review petitioners admittedly have not taken recourse of any fraud or misrepresentation. They participated in the selection fairly. Pursuant to their selection made by the respondents they have been working without any blemish. Now for no fault on their part they have been made to suffer by the respondents. Having regard to the length of service and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the review petitioners may be allowed to continue in service. The learned counsel argues that, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vikash Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors. reported in 2013 (14) SCC 494 come to the rescue of the review petitioners. The learned counsel argues that, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vikash Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors. reported in 2013 (14) SCC 494 come to the rescue of the review petitioners. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that since the appellants were not guilty of any fraud or misrepresentation in respect of their selection and appointment, they should not be made to suffer. IX. While contending his argument, Mr. Talukdar submits that, the selection and appointment of the review petitioners being not illegal, allow the review petition and set aside the operative part of the impugned Judgment and order dated 27.09.2022, more particularly paragraph 29 and 30, thereof. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the State respondents:- Per contra, Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Assam contends the following:- I. The advertisement was issued on 19.02.2011 and the last date of submission of the applications was fixed on 11.03.2011. The Rules of 2012, came into force on 29.11.2012, on which date, the said Rule was published in the official gazetted. Therefore, the Rules of 2012, is not applicable in respect of the selection in question. II. Even if it is assumed that the procedural part of the Rule is applicable to the selection in question as the selection process was not concluded before coming into force of the Rules of 2012, the Rule 8 is not a rule relating to procedure rather it is a Rule of determination of qualification. III. The qualification required and mandated in the advertisement dated 19.02.2011 and the qualification required under Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2012 are distinct and different and therefore, the said Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2012, cannot be made applicable to the selection in question. Therefore, none of the learned counsels had argued the aforesaid provisions of law during the proceeding of the writ petition. IV. Mr. Therefore, none of the learned counsels had argued the aforesaid provisions of law during the proceeding of the writ petition. IV. Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel further submits that there is no pleading by any of the parties to the writ petition that Rules of 2012, is applicable and there is also no pleadings regarding Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2012 and the impact of authentication as has been urged now by the learned counsel for the review petitioners and therefore, in absence of any pleadings by any of the parties, the present review petition is liable to be dismissed. V. Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel further submits that under Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2012, the authentication is prerequisite for those candidates who have not obtained the required qualification of 2(two) years Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technician Course introduced by the Government of Assam from the recognized institutions inasmuch without such authentication, a candidates is not even eligible to apply. Such requirement of authentication came into force subsequent to the issuance of the advertisement and after the last date of submissions of application and therefore, such rule cannot be made applicable to the selection in question. Accordingly, this review petition is liable to be dismissed, concludes Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel. 5. Submission on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6, writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 6279/2022. Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel while adopting the argument of Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel further argues the following:- I. The qualification stipulated in the advertisement is to be scrupulously maintained. It is well settled that public appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be any relaxation in terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved, which is not available in the present case and the qualification mandated in Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2012 came into force subsequently and both the qualifications are different. Therefore, question of authentication as interpreted by the review petitioner does not arise and accordingly, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention, Mr. Deka, relies on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudullah Khan and Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 1803 . 6. Counter argument by Mr. In support of his contention, Mr. Deka, relies on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudullah Khan and Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 1803 . 6. Counter argument by Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned review petitioner:- While countering the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Talukdar submits the following:- I. The Rules of 2012 having come into force in the midst of the selection process would invariably hold the filed in respect of the selection in question, the said Rules of 2012 being mere procedural in nature, would operate retrospectively though the advertisement inviting applications for the post in questions was published at an earlier point of time and before coming into force of the said Rules of 2012. A closer look to rule 6 and 23 would go to show that those relate to general principles of procedure which applies to a selection even in absence of a statutory rule holding the field. In so far as rule 8 is concerned, the same does not confer any additional right/ privilege to the candidates and does not lower down the qualification prevailing at the time of the advertisement. The authentication part of the rule 8 only provides the procedure that requires in respect of a certificate obtained from private institute. Hence, rule 8 also deals with a certain procedure without conferring any additional right or privilege to the candidates. Hence, the Rules of 2012 2ould have a retrospective operation to hold the field in respect of the selection and appointment in question. II. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel also submits that the essential qualification laid down by the advertisement dated 19.02.2011 does not stand in conflict with rule 8 of the said Rules of 2012. The advertisement requires Laboratory Technician Certificate Course or above for the post of laboratory Technician. Rule 8 of the Rules of 2012 requires Diploma in Laboratory Technician Course with a further stipulation that the candidates obtaining Laboratory Technician Course before introduction of the Diploma course would also be eligible. That apart, the advertisement permits qualification of laboratory technician from two sources, viz, one from the Medical Colleges of Assam and another from institutes recognized by the State Government, which may be private institutes but recognized by the Government. That apart, the advertisement permits qualification of laboratory technician from two sources, viz, one from the Medical Colleges of Assam and another from institutes recognized by the State Government, which may be private institutes but recognized by the Government. Rule 8 also permits certificates of qualification from private institutes outside Assam, which requires authentication by the DME, Assam, apart from Diploma Courses from the Medical Colleges of Assam. Essentially and qualitatively the qualification laid down in the advertisement – vis-a-vis the Rules of 2012 are without any inconsistency. In view of the same, the Rules of 2012 would take the said Advertisement dated 19.02.2011 within its sweep. Under such circumstances though the certificates of the review petitioners, at the time of submission of their application were not authenticated by the DME, Assam but the subsequent approval and the ‘deemed authentication’ cured the defect, if any in the selection of the review petitioners. 7. Determination:- I. This Court has given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. II. The advertisement dated 19.02.2011, stipulates the essential qualification to be Laboratory Technician Certificate Course or above/ equivalent. Such qualification is required to be obtained from any Medical College of Assam / recognized institute of Government of Assam. III. The Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2012, which admittedly came into force subsequent to the last date of submission of application, stipulates the following qualification:- a. Must have passed 2 (two) years Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technician Course from Assam Medical College, Guwahati Medical College and Silchar Medical College. b. Those candidates who obtained 2 (two) years Diploma Course or its equivalent Diploma from outside the State of Assam, their certificates are to be authenticate by the Director of Medical Education of Assam. c. If such authentication of certificates are not done by the Director of Medical Education of Assam, those candidates shall not be eligible to apply for the post. IV. Thus it is clear from the Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2012 that a candidate who had obtained 2 (two) years Diploma or equivalent Diploma from outside the State of Assam, their certificate first is to be authenticated by the Director of Medical Education of Assam and then only their certificates shall be treated as required qualification for appointment to the post in question. V. On the other hand, the advertisement requires a certificate course or above from a recognize institute of Government of Assam or from any Medical Colleges of Assam. VI. The admitted position is that the petitioners had not obtained their certificates from any of the Medical Colleges of Assam and therefore, in terms of the advertisement dated 19.02.2011, they must obtained the certificate from a recognise institute of the Government of Assam. VII. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the institutions, from which the petitioners had obtained their certificates are not recognized institute of the Government of Assam. Such fact was not available on record in the proceeding of the WP(C) No. 6279/2018 and the State respondents were silent, whether the institution from where the petitioners had obtained their certificates are recognized by the Government of Assam or not and therefore, this Court issued the direction for verification, whether those institutions from which the petitioners had obtained their respective certificates were recognized on the last date of submission of application. VIII. As discussed hereinabove, the qualification under Rule 8 of the Rules of 2012, and the qualifications required under the Advertisement dated 19.02.2011 are distinct and different. One is Laboratory Technician Certificate Course or above and the other is Two years Diploma Course offered by State Medical Colleges or equivalent and in case it is from outside State, authentication by DME, is required. IX. On the last date of submission of application, there was also no scope or authority of the Director of Medical Education of Assam to authenticate the certificates of the petitioners to make them eligible to apply. Therefore, Court is of the considered opinion that non arguing the applicability of the Rules of 2012, during the hearing of the writ petition would not have any effect on the decision of this Court. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present review petition. X. The arguments advanced by Mr. Therefore, Court is of the considered opinion that non arguing the applicability of the Rules of 2012, during the hearing of the writ petition would not have any effect on the decision of this Court. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present review petition. X. The arguments advanced by Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the review petitioner regarding the deemed authentication cannot be made applicable to the case of the respondents as on the last date of submission of such application, the Director of Medical Education of Assam had no authority to authenticate any certificate to be equivalent or genuine to that of the 2 (two) years Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technician Course awarded by the Assam Medical College, Guwahati Medical College and Silchar Medical College to make the present petitioners eligible to participate in the selection process. What was required at that point of time was that the institutions from where the petitioners had obtained the certificates were recognized institution by the Government of Assam on the last date of submission of application. Therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of the record, while passing the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2022 in WP(C) No.6279/2022. XI. The other argument regarding ex post facto approval and recommendation of the Enquiry Committee and power of relaxation under Rule 23 of the Rules of 2012 cannot be reopened in a review petition and cannot be gone into the merit of the case. Accordingly, such contentions are also rejected. XII. In view of the aforesaid determinations, this Review Petition stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.