JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause-10 of the letters patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 05.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2615 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 20.09.2016 has been quashed and set aside with a direction upon the respondents to release all consequential benefits to the petitioners (respondents herein) within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:- It is the case that the School in question, i.e., Kshitish Deaf and Dumb Primary School, Nivaranpur, Ranchi is a Government Recognized Special Minority Aided School and all the expenses towards salary and retiral benefits of the teaching and non-teaching staffs appointed against sanctioned posts are being financed and funded by the State Government from public exchequer. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.12.2010, petitioners being B.A. and having special professional qualification of Diploma in Special Education – Hearing Impaired, applied for appointment as Assistant Teachers. After due process of scrutiny and interview, petitioners were selected and they gave their joining on 01.04.2011 and since then they are discharging their duties. Their appointments had also been approved by the District Superintendent of Education after necessary scrutiny and verification of documents, vide memo no. 1499, dated 09.05.2012 granting them Matric Trained Scale of Rs.9,300 – 34,800 from date of their joining. In spite of their joining and approval by the competent authorities, petitioners were not being paid their salary from the date of their initial joining. When no heed was paid to their representations, petitioners moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3203 of 2013. However, during pendency of the writ petition, vide issuance of letter bearing no. 1905, Dated 21.05.2013, the approval of appointment of petitioners granted by the predecessor-in-office on 09.05.2012, was canceled without providing the opportunity of being heard. The ground of rejection is also frivolous as the condition of passing TET Examination was adopted by the State with effect from 05.09.2012 whereas the petitioners have joined their service on 01.04.2011, which was duly approved by the competent authority. Petitioners continued to work but their salary had been withheld. The ground of rejection is also frivolous as the condition of passing TET Examination was adopted by the State with effect from 05.09.2012 whereas the petitioners have joined their service on 01.04.2011, which was duly approved by the competent authority. Petitioners continued to work but their salary had been withheld. However, in the meantime, the writ petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of vide order dated 16.07.2014 and the matter was remanded back before respondent no.2–Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand. However, when the respondents did not act pursuant to order of this Court, the petitioners filed Contempt Case (Civil) No. 824 of 2014. In the meantime, in light of order dated 16.07.2014, passed in W.P.(S) No. 3203 of 2013, the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi submitted preposition statement in four copies along with necessary documents to the Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, which was duly replied by him vide letter no. 16 (Vidhi), dated 16.01.2015 directing the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi to act in pursuant to Letter No. 957, dated 22.06.2014. In the meantime, the respondent no.2 passed order dated 20.09.2016, as contained in memo no. 669, whereby the petitioner's claim for fixation of pay has been rejected on the ground of “reservation roster not followed in their appointment” despite knowing the fact that roster policy is not applicable to the Minority Institutions in appointment of teachers and admission of students. However, after passing of impugned order dated 20.09.2016, as contained in memo no.669, the contempt proceeding was dropped. It appears from the pleading made as referred herein that both the writ petitioners (respondents herein) had participated in the process of selection by virtue of advertisement dated 23.12.2010 published in the daily newspaper, whereby, the applications have been invited from the trained candidates, i.e., Diploma in Special Education-Hearing Impaired for appointment of two teachers against the two vacancies on the ground of retirement of teachers. The private respondents, namely, Shri Omkar Ram and Smt. Seema Singh, had participated in the process of selection along with other candidates, i.e. one appellant of LPA. No.484 of 2018 and LPA No.20 of 2020, namely, Sarita Kumari. The respondents herein have been appointed in the Matric Trained Scale of Rs.9300-34800 vide memo no.1499 dated 09.05.2012 and started discharging their duties but their salary have not been paid since 01.04.2011 but without any rhyme and reason, work was being taken. No.484 of 2018 and LPA No.20 of 2020, namely, Sarita Kumari. The respondents herein have been appointed in the Matric Trained Scale of Rs.9300-34800 vide memo no.1499 dated 09.05.2012 and started discharging their duties but their salary have not been paid since 01.04.2011 but without any rhyme and reason, work was being taken. Their services have also been approved by the respondent no.3-District Superintendent of Education, but subsequent thereto, the approval granted to the services of the private respondents have been recalled vide decision as contained in letter no.1905 dated 21.05.2013 on the ground that teacher eligibility test examination has not been passed and the reservation roster has not been followed. The private respondents, being aggrieved with such decision, has approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2615 of 2017. The learned Single Judge has considered the very two grounds, i.e., (i) The recall of the order of approval by the concerned authority. (ii) The non-observance of principle of reservation. So far as the ground of recall of decision of approval, the learned Single Judge has considered the same unjustified and improper since the same was taken by way of the power of review by the authority who, in the earlier occasion has approved the services of these private respondents. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has come to the conclusion that the Administrative Authority has got no power to recall/review their own order on the basis of the principle that power of review/revision can only be exercised if provided under the statute. The second ground, i.e., the reservation roster has not been followed, the learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sindhi Education Society and Anr. Vrs. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., reported in (2010) 8 SCC 49 , wherein, it has been laid down that in the minority school, the reservation policy is not required to be followed. The State, being aggrieved with the said order dated 05.09.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2615 of 2017, is before this Court by filing the instant appeal. 3. The State, being aggrieved with the said order dated 05.09.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2615 of 2017, is before this Court by filing the instant appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State has submitted that reason assigned by the learned Single Judge is not justified since the same has been passed without taking into consideration the fact that while recalling the decision of approval of services of the private respondents, the consideration has been given about the fact that reservation roster has not been followed. 4. The State-appellant has filed an appeal on the basis of the decision of the Government Circular dated 10.04.2000, appended as Annexure-26 and notification dated 22.04.2016, appended as Annexure-27 to the paper book. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 has submitted by referring to the memo no.927 dated 10.04.2000 issued by the functionaries of the erstwhile State of Bihar addressed to the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, wherein, there is no reference to disapproved the service of the concerned employee, save and except, the certain guidelines have been given. Further, so far as the notification dated 22.04.2016 is concerned, the same will not be applicable in the facts of the given case since, here the approval was granted on 09.05.2012 and the position of law is well settled that any notification, executive instruction, cannot be given its retrospective application. 6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 7. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that the private respondents-writ petitioners have been appointed in pursuant to the advertisement and have been allowed to discharge their duties but even after approval of their services vide order dated 09.05.2012 by the competent authority, the salary had not been paid. Further, the approval so granted on 09.05.2012 has also been recalled. 8. Herein, two grounds have been taken, i.e., having no TET certificate and roster reservation has not been followed, as would appear from the impugned order. The appeal has been filed on the basis of the two documents, i.e., one communication issued under the Signature of Deputy Director, Primary Education of the Erstwhile State of Bihar as contained in memo no.927 dated 10.04.2000 and second the notification no.125 dated 22.04.2016. The appeal has been filed on the basis of the two documents, i.e., one communication issued under the Signature of Deputy Director, Primary Education of the Erstwhile State of Bihar as contained in memo no.927 dated 10.04.2000 and second the notification no.125 dated 22.04.2016. 9. This Court, therefore, is proceeding to examined the ground, upon which, the instant appeal has been filed, i.e., the decision said to have been taken by the Erstwhile State of Bihar dated 10.04.2000 and State of Jharkhand dated 22.04.2016. 9. This Court, therefore, is proceeding to examined the ground, upon which, the instant appeal has been filed, i.e., the decision said to have been taken by the Erstwhile State of Bihar dated 10.04.2000 and State of Jharkhand dated 22.04.2016. So far as the decision dated 10.04.2000 as was issued by the Erstwhile State of Bihar, appended as Annexure-26 to the paper book, it is evident that the decision has been taken so communicated to the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi with respect to submission of recommended preposition statement so as to ensure payment of salary on fulfillment of certain conditions, for ready reference, the content of the same is being reproduced hereinbelow:- ^^mi;qZDr fo"k;d vkids i=kad 3972 fnukad 4-11-97 ds }kjk izkIr J)kuUn lsokJe e/; fo|ky;] jkrwiFk jkaph ds f'k{kdksa dk osru fu/kkZj.k izi= foHkkxh; ladYi la[;k 3268 fnukad 5-11-93 ds vkyksd esa vkUrfjd foŸkh; lykgdkj ds lgefr ds vuqeksnuijkUr rhu izfr;ksa esa okil fd;k tkrk gSA osrukfn ds Hkqxrku djus ds iwoZ fuEukafdr fcUnqvksa ls larq"V gksus ds i'pkr gh osru Hkqxrku lqfuf'pr djsxasA budh fu;qfDr Lohd`r ds fo#) dh xbZ gks ,oa fof/kor :Ik ls dh xbZ gksA 1- budk 'kS{kf.kd@iz'kSf.kd izek.k i= dk lR;kiu djk fy;k x;k gksA 2- fu;qfDr esa vkj{k.k fu;e dk ikyu gqvk gksA 3- 'kk[kk lfpoky;] jkaph ls izkIr inkas dk lR;kiu ds ckn gh Hkqxrku fd;k tk;A 4- 'kk[kk lfpoky;] jkpah ls izkIr vkoaVu ls jkaph 'kk[kk lfpoky; }kjk iznRr bZdkbZ dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk;A blesa ls ,d izfr dk;kZy; vfHkys[k ds :i eas j[k dj 'ks"k nks izfr;k¡ fu;a=h inkf/kdkjh ds chp forfjr dj nsaxsA lkFk gh r`rh; ,oa prqFkZ ds ewy izfr ls mDr fo|ky; ds inksa dks feyku dj larq"V gksus ds i'pkr~ osru Hkqxrku dh dkjZokbZ djsaA fo'okl Hkktu] g0@& j/kqoa'k dqekj mi funs'kd izk0 f'k0 Kkikad %& 927 @fnukad 10-04-2000 Ikzfrfyfi %& lfpo@iz/kkuk/;kid] J)kuUn lsokJe e/; fo|ky;] jkrwiFk] jkaph dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ izsf"krA j/kqoa'k dqekj mi funs'kd izk0f'k0^^ It is evident from the aforesaid document that condition so stipulated is that the appointment must be within the sanction strength, the educational certificate must be authenticated, reservation roster must be observed and salary must be disbursed after authentication of the post. The condition no.(i) which pertains to appointment of the sanction post, it is not the case of the State-appellant that appointment is not against the sanctioned post, rather, it would be evident from the advertisement that the vacancies had been floated to fill up two posts on retirement of two working employee on attaining the age of superannuation, hence, the condition of appointment beyond sanctioned strength, according to our considered view, is not applicable. 10. So far as the authentication/verification of certificate is concerned, that is not the ground taken in the impugned order. So far as the non-observance of the reservation policy is concerned, the same can also not be said to be a ground of non-approval of the service of the private respondents due to the reason that the School in question since in the minority as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sindhi Education Society and Anr. Vrs. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., (supra), the reservation roster will not be applicable. So far as the disbursement of salary is concerned, the same will also not said to be a ground, since, the salary has not been paid as per the pleading made in the writ petition. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid fact is of the view that the condition stipulated in the communication dated 10.04.2000, cannot be said to be a ground to disapprove the services of the private respondents. So far as the notification dated 22.04.2016 is concerned, the same will not be applicable in the facts of the given case, since the approval herein was granted way back on 09.05.2012 and it is the settled position of law that any executive instruction cannot be given its retrospective application, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P. Mahendran and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., (1990) 1 SCC 411 , wherein at paragraph-5 it has been held which reads as hereunder:- “5. It is well settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. It is well settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. If a rule is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed as prospective only. In the absence of any express provision or necessary intendment the rule cannot be given retrospective effect except in matter of procedure.” 11. The learned Single Judge has also taken a ground that once the services of private respondents have been approved, same authority has got no power to recall the said order. 12. This Court has considered the said ground also a justified one, since, the power of recall of the order can only be exercised if there is patent illegality then the authority who has passed an order, can well recall. 13. But here as per the impugned order, this Court has not found that any patent illegality is there, rather, the question of nonobservance of reservation roster and TET certificate having not been produced. The advertisement does not stipulate any condition to produce the TET certificate. 14. This Court, in that view of the matter is of the view that in such situation, the decision already taken by the concerned authority, cannot be recalled/reviewed due to the position of law that the power of review can only be exercised by the authority who has been conferred with the power to exercise such power, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi & Ors. Vrs. Shri Pradyuman Singhji Arjun Singhji, (1971) 3 SCC 844 , that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought to notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the government had no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have reviewed its order. 15. No provision in the Act was brought to notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the government had no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have reviewed its order. 15. This Court, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove and after coming back to the order passed by the learned Single Judge is of the view that the learned Single Judge has given thoughtful consideration of the legal position as also the factual aspect and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 16. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed. 17. In consequent to dismissal of this appeal, I.A. No.1702 of 2018 and I.A. No.9085 of 2017 stand disposed of.