A. Hazarika, J.
1. Invoking power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondent authorities for passing necessary order for restoration of the seniority of the petitioner as Assistant Registrar over respondent No. 3 by giving retrospective effect from 21.6.2003 and to promote the petitioner as Deputy Registrar by setting aside the order of promotion dated 29.3.2007 issued in favour of the respondent No. 3.
2. The pleadings averred in the writ petition leads to the following facts, viz.:
(i) The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Assistant (LDA for short) in the Gauhati High Court alongwith one Sri Kamala Kanta Barman and the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 12.06.1973 issued by the Joint Registrar. Thereafter, in the year 1985 all the three incumbents were promoted to the posts of Upper Division Assistants (UDA for short) followed by further promotion to the posts of Superintendents in the year 1998 by maintaining the same seriatim as per seniority of the gradation list wherein the name of Sri Kamala Kanta Barman was placed against serial No. 1, the petitioner at serial No. 2 and respondent No. 3 at serial No. 3.
(ii) Right from the days of initial appointment as L.D.A., the petitioner has worked in various matters such as Election Petitions, Company matters, Tax matters, Testamentary Suits, Execution Cases, Reference Cases, Contempt matters, both civil and criminal and also matters relating to the Original Jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, petitioner has got wide experience in all the sections of this Court in both Judicial and Administrative sides.
(iii) Further, after the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent, his services were utilized by the Registrars of this Court to the fullest possible extent for monitoring the works of more than one section at a time. Even at one point of time, the petitioner was directed to supervise the works of Record Room, Criminal Appeal and Bail sections which was performed by the petitioner with sincerity and honesty.
(iv) Three numbers of disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner and all those proceedings have been dropped without imposing any kind of penalty as prescribed under Rule 22 of the Gauhati High Court Services (Appointment, Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1967'). So far the Disciplinary Proceeding No. 6/2000 is concerned, in the order dated 18.01.2003 passed by the Respondent No. 2 while closing the abovementioned proceedings, it has been mentioned that the Hon'ble Chief Justice has been pleased to order that the petitioner be cautioned to be careful in future, which according to the petitioner, does not stand as an adverse remark against him.
3. In the backdrop of the above facts, the main grievance of the petitioner is that vide Notification dated 21.06.2003, issued by the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 3 was promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar (Accounts) by superseding the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a statutory Appeal dated 24.07.2003 before the Hon'ble Chief Justice under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1967. During the pendency of the Appeal, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar on 02.09.2003 without giving any benefit of retrospective effect. As a result, the petitioner remained junior to the Respondent No. 3 inspite of being senior to him in service. Thereafter, vide his representations dated 23.12.2003,12.5.2004 and 16.5.2005 the petitioner requested the authority concerned to place his appeal dated 24.07.2003 before the Hon'ble Chief Justice which was not placed before his Lordships for about three years. Again, on 3.05.2006 another appeal was filed by the petitioner with minor modifications of the earlier grounds. Meanwhile, vide order dated 29.05.06 the respondent No. 2 was pleased to communicate the petitioner that the Hon'ble Chief Justice has been pleased to reject the prayer of the petitioner for restoration of his seniority over the respondent No. 3.
4. That being aggrieved by the order dated 29.05.2006, the petitioner submitted a Re-. view Petition before the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 12.09.2006 for review of the order as communicated by the Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 28.05.2006 and to allow the appeal dated 24.7.2003. According to the petitioner the said Review Petition has not been placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Even all the representations as well as the appeal submitted by the petitioner were, in all probability not placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice or the Departmental Promotion Committee by the authority. Meanwhile, when the authority concerned were taking steps to fill up the vacant post of Deputy Registrar by promoting the Respondent No. 3, the petitioner filed another application before the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 20.01.2007 praying for disposal of the review application on merit, with a further prayer not to promote the respondent No. 3 till disposal of the Review Application. On 28.03.2007 the petitioner submitted a representation before the Hon'ble Chief Justice (Acting) praying for not to approve the recommendation for promotion of the respondent No.3 on the ground that he had preferred a writ petition pertaining to his seniority over respondent No. 3 vide W.P.(C) No. 1240/2007 and on 19.03.2007 the court was pleased to issue notice of motion returnable on 2.04.2007.
5. The petitioner further stated that vide Notification dated 29.03.2007 issued by the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 3 was again promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar in the Principal seat of Gauhati High Court before disposal of the Review Application and the above-mentioned writ petition. Being aggrieved by the non-disposal of the Review Petition as well as the promotion of the respondent No. 3 to the post of Assistant Registrar and Deputy Registrar by superseding the petitioner who is all along senior to the respondent No. 3, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.
6. An affidavit-in-oppostion has been submitted on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the instant case denying the statements made in the writ petition. The specific plea of the respondent No. 2 is that so far the Review Application of the writ petitioner is concerned, after his appeal dated 3.5.2006 for restoration of his seniority over the respondent No. 3 was rejected by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, there is no provision for filing Review Application under the Rules of 1967.
7. Heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. R.C. Saikia, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court, appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None appeared for Respondent No. 3.
8. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the only question which arose before us for determination is whether once an appeal is rejected or any order is passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on appeal, the same can be reviewed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice under the Rules of 1967? Hence, considering the aforesaid facts, we do not feel it appropriate to deal with the other statements made in the writ petition as well as the affidavits filed by the respondents.
9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it has to be decided whether the grievance of the petitioner can now be addressed by way of disposal of the petition for review filed by him on 12.09.2006. It has been plainly argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that the relevant Rules i.e. Rules of 1967 does not stipulate any power of review and consequently such power of review can not be exercised. The theory of the power of review being creature of statute and the power of review being circumscribed by the mandate of statutory provisions of review is available and applicable in the cases of review by judicial and quasi judicial bodies exercising jurisdiction under statute. There is no restraint on administrative bodies and authorities in reviewing its own orders in the interest of justice.
10. Under the circumstances some what akin to the present case where filling up posts in the cadre of Bihar Superior Judicial Service and fixing inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees by the Patna High Court, deciding on the legality of the actions taken by the High Court on administrative side, the Apex Court in the case of D. Ganesh Rao Patnaik and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in : AIR2005SC4321 has held--.In our opinion, as a principle of law, there is no legal bar of prohibition against an administrative body in seeking to review its earlier decision provided the parties likely to be affected by such a decision are afforded an opportunity of hearing....
11. On the face of the aforesaid authority we are of the view that the Review application dated 12.09.2006 shall be decided by the appropriate authority in the administrative side on merit after affording opportunity to all the persons who are likely to be affected by any decision that may be reached in course of said proceedings.
12. Registry is directed to place the matter accordingly on administrative side.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts, the present writ petition stands closed.