GAHC010067832021 2025:GAU-AS:17825 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI Review. Pet. 57/2021 1. Pranab Barman (Age-42) Son of Bhadreswar Barman R/O Village-House No. 100, Birubari, Guwahati P.O. – Gopinath Nagar P.S. – Paltan Bazar, Dist- Kamrup (M), Assam PIN- 781016 2. Sri Amar Deka (Age-40) S/O Late Homeswar Deka R/O Vill- Barpanara P.O.- Bihdia P.S.- Baihata Chariali, Distr-Kamrup, Assam PIN-781381 3. Sri Mantu Pathak (Age-32 years) S/O Late Padma Pathak R/O Vill- Sripudeor P.O.- Adalbari P.S.- Mushalpur, Dist-Baksa(BTR), Assam PIN- 781372 4. Sri Dhiren Roy (Age-29) S/O Sri Bhagaban Roy R/O Vill- Sripurdeor P.O.- Adalbari P.S.- Mushalpur, Dist-Baksa (BTR), Assam PIN-781372 5. Sri Pintu Talukdar (Age- 34 years) S/O Sri Tomiram Talukdar R/O Vill- Chucheri P.O.-Barnaddi P.S.- Belsor, Dist-Nalbari, Assam PIN-781303 6. Sri Ghanashyam Medhi (Age- 45 years) S/O Sri Jogeswar Medhi R/O Vill- Batsasr, P.O.- Nalbari, Assam PIN-781303 7. Sri Bhogdhar Das (Age-48 years) S/O Late Kaliram Das R/O Vill- Chutan Guri P.O.- Kumura Guri P.S.-Morigaon, Dist- Morigaon, Assam PIN- 782105 8. Sri Moni Deka (Age-39 years) S/O Late Minaram Deka R/O Vill- Da-Gaon P.O.- Ahatguri P.S.- Dharamtol, Dist- Morigaon, Assam PIN-782412 ……Review Petitioners -Vs- 1. The State of Assam Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Social Welfare Department, Dispur, Guwahati-781006 2. The State Level Police Recruitment Board, Assam, Rehabari, Guwahati-781008 3. The Guwahati University, Guwahati-781014 4. Commissioner & Secretary Govt. of Assam, Social Justice and Empowerment, Assam Secretariate, Dispur, Ghy-781006 5. The Director, Social Justice and Empowerment, Lakhi Mandir, Saurav Nagar, Beltola Tiniali, Ghy-781028 ……….. Respondents Review. Pet. 60/2021 1. Saiful Haque (Age-22 years) Son of Sanowar Ali R/O Vill- Dampur Saudor Bori P.O.-Dampur P.S.- Hajo, Dist-Kamrup, Assam PIN-781102 2. Siba Ram Das (Age-42 years) S/O Gopal Das R/O Vill- Bamundi P.O.-Bamundi P.S.- Sualkuchi, Dist-Kamrup, Assam PIN-781003 3. Nazim Ali (Age-31 years) S/O Late Najar Ali R/O Vill- Churchuri P.O.- Barnaddi P.S.- Belsor, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781303 4. Saidur Rahman (Age-24 years) S/O Abdul Sattar R/O Vill Gandhiya Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781304 5. Hareswar Boro (Age-32 years) S/O Kancha Boro R/O Vill- NO. 1 Narua P.O.- Narua P.S.- Mukalmua, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781138 6. Md. Faijur Ali (Age-50 years ) S/O. Late Ushub Ali R/O Vill- Chamata P.O.- Pachim Chamata P.S.- Belsor, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781306 7. Pranab Bharali (Age-40 years) S/O Late Rajani Bharali R/O Vill – Balowa P.O.- Balowa P.S.- Belsor, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN 781310 8. Hirakjyoti Deka (Age- 29 years) S/O Bhabendra Deka R/O Vill- Jaha P.O.- Pub Kalkuchi P.S.- Mukalmua, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN-781348 9. Ghanashyam Bharali (Age-42 years) S/O Late Mathur Bharali R/O Vill- Balowa P.O.- Balowa P.S.- Belsor, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781310 10. Dipak Das (Age- 29 years) S/O Bharat Das R/O Vill- Solmara P.O. – Solmara P.S.- Belsor, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781338 11. Dhanjit Barman ( Age- 29 years) S/O Chakreswar Barman R/O Vill- Nalbari P.O.- Nalbari P.S.- Nalbari, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN-781369 12. Ms. Jeuti Barman (Age- 49 years) D/O Late Ananta Barman R/O Vill- Mohkhali P.O.- Gopal Than P.S.- Belsor, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781334 13. Utpal Baishya (Age- 44 years) S/O Late Kushal Ch. Baishya R/O Vill- Janigog P.O.- Janigog Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781334 14. Rameswar Haloi (Age- 38 Years) S/O Late Jali Ram Haloi R/O Vill- Hablakha P.O.- Khatikuchi P.S.- Ghograpar, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN-781369 15. Bhabit Chandra Deka (Age-49 years) S/O Late Saya Ram Deka R/O Vill- Keherua P.O.- Khatikuchi P.S.- Ghograpar, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN-781369 16. Rajitu Haque (Age- 37 years) D/O Soleman Ali R/O Vill- Gandhiya P.O.- Gandhiya P.S.- Belsor, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781304 17. Ms. Rina Baishya (Age- 46 years) D/O Late Mantu Baishya R/O Vill- Budrukuchi P.O.- Budrukuchi P.S.- Nalbari, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN-781348 18. Gitumani Sarma (Age-37 years ) S/O Late Birendra Nath Sarma R/O Vill- Akhara P.O.- Suradi Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781340 19. Anil Medhi (Age-50 years) S/O Late Siro Ram Medhi R/O Vill- Digheli P.O.- Bar Digheli P.S.- Nalbari, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN-781335 20. Manab Jyoti Nath (Age-24 years) S/O Arup Kumar Nath R/O Vill- Rampur Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781312 21. Rakibuddin Ahmed (Age- 25 years) S/O Rukshad Ali R/O Vill- Galdighala P.O.- MUkalmua P.S.- Mukalmua, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN-781126 22. Ms. Alaka Tahbildar (Age- 36 years) D/O Bhaben Tahbildar R/O Vill- Chamata P.O.- chamata P.S.- Belsor, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781306 23. Abdul Jubbar (Age-35 years) S/O Eyakub Ali R/O Vill- Kandhbari P.O.- Mukalmua P.S.- Mukalmua, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781126 24. Altaf Ali (Age- 39) years S/O Asan Ali R/O Vill- NO. 2 Lokhakatha P.O.- Loharkatha P.S.- Mukalmua, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781126 25. Idris Ali (Age- 34 years) S/O Matiur Ali R/O Vill- Bartala P.O. Bartala Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781138 26. Ms. Jonali Das (Age- 30 years) D/O Bharat Das R/O Vill- Solmara P.S.- Belsor, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781338 27. Binay Bishya (Age- 36 years) S/O Dinabandhu Baishya R/O Vill- Bangaon P.O.- Bangram P.S.- Belsor, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781303 28. Ms. Arpana Talukdar (Age- 35 years) D/O Kamini Talukdar R/O Vill – Barkulhati P.O.- Kalag P.S.- Nalbari, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781351 29. Ms. Hasina Begum (Age- 40 years) S/O Late Abdul Goni R/O Vill- Bangaon P.O.- Bangram P.S.- Belsor, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781303 30. Rajani Baishya ( Age- 51 years) S/O Late Amrit Chandra Baishya R/O Vill- Alengidal P.O.- Janigog P.S.- Nalbari, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781334 31. Ms. Riju Mani Devi (Age-43 years) D/O Late Ajit Sarma R/O Vill- Gandhiya P.O.- Gandhiya P.S.- Belsor, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781304 32. Phanidhar Baishya (Age-45 years) S/O Mahendra Baishya R/O Vill- Chamaria Satra P.O.- Pachim Samaria P.S.- Belsor, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781306 33. Md. Abdul Goni (Age-48 years) S/O Md. Hainul Ali R/O Vill- Chamat P.O.- Pachim Chamata P.S.- Belsor, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN-781306 34. Manoj Kumar Das (Age- 34 years) S/O Prabin Chandra Das R/O Vill- Pub- Chechamukh P.O.- Pacharia P.S.- Hajo, Dist- Kamrup, Assam PIN- 781104 35. Saheb Ulah (Age-49 years) S/O Paharsa Ali R/O Vill- Saniadi P.O.- Saniadi P.O.- Saniadi P.S.- Hajo, Dist- Kamrup, Assam PIN-781102 36. Shonabar Ali (Age- 26 years) S/O Kula Miah R/O Vill- Bhangnamari P.O.- Bhangnamari P.S.- Bhangnamari, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781126 37. Lakshman Barman (Age- 34 years) S/O Paramananda Barman R/O ?Vill- Bartala P.O.- Bartala P.S.- Mukalmua, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781138 38. Sushila Baro (Age- 28 years) D/O Kancha Baro R/O Vill- NO. 1, Narua P.O. Narua P.S.- MUkalmua, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781138 39. Labo Ram Baro (Age-27 years) S/O Kancha Baro R/O Vill No. 1, Narua P.O.- Narua P.S.- Mukalmua, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781138 40. Abedulla Ali (Age-46 years) S/O Abdul Mazid R/O Vill- Mukalmua, P.O.- MUkalmua P.S.- Mukalmua, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781138 41. Najrul Ali (Age 35 years) S/O Aman Ali R/O Vill- Narayanpur P.O.- Narayanpur P.S. Mukalmua, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781126 42. Amarjyoti Barman (Age- 40 years) S/O Ghanakanta Barman R/O Vill- Gamarimuri Kalopara P.O.- Gamarimuri P.S.- Belsor, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781306 43. Ms. Khanjana Devi (Age- 33 years) D/O Harendra Chandra Nath R/O Vill- House No. 3, Rupnagar, Near L.P. School, Guwahati. Dist- Kamrup (M), Assam PIN-781032 44. Achyut Swagiary ( Age- 36 years) S/O Late Jaleswar Swargiary R/O Vill- House No. 36, Rupnagar, Near L.P. School, Guwahati. Dist- Kamrup (M), Assam PIN- 781032 45. Ms. Nandita Baishya (Age- 35 years) D/O Maheswar Baishya R/O & C/O Jadab Deka, South Sarania, Gandhi Mandap Road. Guwahati- 781007 Dist- Kamrup (M), Assam 46. Ms. Rita Basumatary (Age- 42 years) D/O Upen Basumatary R/O Vill- House No. 60, Down Town, Nabudaya Path, P.s.- Dispur. Dist- Kamrup (M), Assam 47. Ms. Bhabani Nath (Age- 21 years) D/O Upen Nath R/O Vill- Dhantola P.S.- Nalbari Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781337 48 . Ms. Gita Kalita (Age-42 years) D/O Jogendra Kalita R/O Vill- Balitara P.O.- Balitara P.S.- Ghograpar, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN-781349 48. Ms. Shamsuwara Begum (Age- 37 years) D/O Jogendra Kalita R/O Vill- Balitara P.O.- Balitara P.S.- Ghograpar, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN 781349 49. Ms. Shamsuwara Begum (Age- 37 years) D/O Safed ali R/O Vill- Loharkatha, P.O.- Loharkatha P.S.- Mukalmua, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN-781126 50. Ms. Runi Das(Age- 36 years) D/O Late Jogesh Kalita R/O Vill- Sonpur Ward No. 5, Nalbari P.S.- Nalbari, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781335 51. Prafulla Swargiary (Age- 42 Years) S/O Late Thring Swargiary R/O Vill- Burinagar P.O.- Burinagar P.S.- Nalbari, Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781341 52. Majnur Ali (Age- 37 years) S/O Afaj Ali R/O Vill- Akana, P.O.- Barajol P.S.- Ghograpar Dist- Nalbari, Assam PIN- 781369 ……….. Review Petitioners -Vs- 1. The State of Assam Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Social Welfare Department, Dispur, 2. The State Level Police Recruitment Board, Assam, Rehabari, Guwahati- 781008 3. Guwahati University Guwahati- 781014 …………. Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA For the Petitioner(s) : Heard Mr. N. K. Kalita, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. M. Das, Standing Counsel, Social Justice for respondents No. 4 & 5. Mr. R. C. Alom, Standing Counsel, Gauhati University, for the respondent No. 3.  Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A  Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 27.11.2025  Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No  Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. N. K. Kalita, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. M. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Social Justice for the respondents No. 4 and 5; and Mr. R. C. Alom, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University for the respondent No. 3. 2. This review petition is filed against the Judgment and Order dated 03.03.2021 passed in WP No. 1049/2021 and other connected writ petitions. 3. The petitioners are physically challenged persons, who have applied for Grade IV posts in response to the Advertisement dated 30/12/2018 issued by the Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Assam, whose service was outsourced by the Nodal Department for conducting recruitment process for Grate-III and Grade-IV posts in various Departments of the State Government. The said Advertisement was issued by the Government for filling up backlog vacancies for physically challenged persons. 4. Pursuant to the completion of the formalities the examination was conducted by the Police Recruitment Board and the selection process of Grade-IV, posts was conducted through Digital Viva test. The selection process undertaken by the State Level Police Recruitment Board had completed the selection in respect of 5 or 6 districts of the State of Assam. Subsequent thereto, several complaints were raised about the manner, in which the examination was conducted. Thereafter, the State Level Police Recruitment Board through a press note dated 09.10.2020 kept on hold the recruitment process w.e.f 10.10.2020. Subsequently, by Notification dated 03.01.2021, issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department, all the Digital Viva interviews conducted by the State Level Police Recruitment Board for the 7 districts was cancelled. It was also announced that the said recruitment process will be carried out by the Gauhati University by utilizing the application forms already collected by the State Level Police Recruitment Board. 5. The review petitioners as writ petitioners have challenged this notification for cancelling the selection and recruitment process undertaken by the State Level Police Recruitment Board and the selection sought to be undertaken by the Gauhati University was put to challenge by the present review petitioners being WP(C) No. 1049/2021. 6. The matter was contested by the respondents and by judgment and order dated 03.03.221, the writ petition came to be rejected. 7. The review petition thereafter, has been directed against the Judgment dated 03.03.2021 passed in WP(C) No. 1049/2021, on the ground that in spite of due diligence the review petitioners could not placed before the Court two Office Memorandums, being Office Memorandum Dated 13.04.2017 issued by the Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training; and the Office Memorandum/Notification dated 25.05.2016, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam Personnel Department. 8. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the review petitioners urged before the Court that these Office Memorandums and the Notifications or communication were issued by the Central Government and the other by the State Government clearly reflects the intention and the decision taken by the government at the appropriate level that for Grade-III and Grade-IV posts where personality assessment is not an absolute recruitment, recruitment by the system of holding the interviews will be discontinued with immediate effect. 9. It is therefore submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that these documents being placed before the learned Single Judge, the judgment under review could not have been rendered as the Government has already taken a decision to do away with the process of recruitment for Grate-IV posts by way of interview. The further submissions of the learned Senior Counsel before this Court is that the manner in which the State Level Police Recruitment Board undertook the selection process by way of Digital Viva was more objective as the candidates were required to make their choices on the basis of the questions which are presented before them in the process of Digital Viva. There was no written examination. However, the process of Digital Viva required the candidates to select the correct answer for the questions which are presented to them by the process of Digital Viva. 10. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the cancellation of the process of recruitment undertaken by the State Level Police Recruitment Board by way of Digital viva and replace by the interview now sought to be undertaken by the Gauhati University will greatly hamper the prospects of all legitimate candidates as if the selection is restricted only the personal interviews without there being any written examination it gives scope for arbitrariness and as the selection of the candidates will depend on the subjective assessments made by the interviewers. Therefore, the process of selection by way of interview as sought to be made by the Gauhati University will not being objective does not fulfill the purpose for which the special drive for recruitment for persons with disability has been sought to be achieved. There are several candidates who may have hearing or speech disability and therefore, the very process of undertaking the selection by way of only interviews is contrary to the objectives ought to be achieved. 11. It is therefore, submitted that the judgment under review was rendered without taking into consideration the OM and the Notification enclosed to the present review petition and therefore, this OM and the notification was a relevant material, they are ought to have been placed before the Court by the respondents and its existence was not known to the review petitioners inspite of due diligence. Now, subsequently, this information is come to their knowledge and therefore, the present review petition is filed seeking for review of the Judgment and Order dated 03.03.2021. 12. Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate on the other hand disputes the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel. Mr. D. Nath, submits that although the notification dated 25.05.2016 refers to discontinuation of interview in respect of Grade-III and Grade-IV posts were personality assessment is not an absolute recruitment, this is subject to such changes or amendments brought to the service rules/the executive instructions which were required to be undertaken. It is submitted that such changes have not yet been undertaken and therefore, this notification even if have been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench would not altered the outcome of the judgment. 13. During the course of the hearing reference was made to a decision taken in the State Cabinet regarding the conduct of Special Recruitment Drive for filling up backlog vacancies in Grade III and Grade-IV posts for persons with disabilities (PWD) in various departments. 14. It was pointed out by the Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioners that the State Cabinet had taken a decision that the selection and recruitment under the Special Recruitment drive will be undertaken by Digital Viva only. As a consequent thereof, the Senior Government Advocate was directed to place the materials before the Court, if any, such a decision was taken by the State Cabinet. The Senior Government Advocate has placed before this Court an extract of the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 09.10.2018, which does not reflect that any such decision was taken by State Cabinet that the recruitment undertaken by the State Level Recruitment Board for the special recruitment drive, will be undertaken only by means of Digital Viva. The minutes does reflect that the State Level Police Recruitment Board will conduct a common test for Grade-III and a common test for Grade-IV as soon as possible. However, subsequently, in view of the complaints received the State Level Police Recruitment Board had kept the recruitment process on hold and thereafter, by notification dated 25.05.2016, the entire process of selection was cancelled. 15. Time and again the principles for review of Judgment has been laid down by this Court as well as by the Apex Court. The parameters, in which the Court exercises or invokes its review jurisdiction, are in the spirit of the provisions of the CPC. 16. Ordinarily it is an error apparent on the face of the record, for such other material which was very relevant for the purposes of deciding the issue which could not be placed before the Court and which had it been place before the Court would have alter the decision arrived at by the Court. The review jurisdiction of a writ Court has time and again been discussed by the Apex Court as well as several Courts across the country including this Court. 17. For the present, it will be proper to refer to one such authority on this aspect. Reference in this regard may be made to the Judgment rendered by the Court in Sow Chandra Kante and another –Vs- Sheikh Habib, reported in (1975) 1 SCC 674, the Apex Court explained the parameter for exercise of the review jurisdiction under the High Courts. The Judgment of the Court must be read as a whole and the ratio there from is required to be culled out in reading the same in its entirety and not a part of it. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below: A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition, through different counsel, of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. The very strict need for compliance with these factors is the rationale behind the insistence of counsel's certificate which should not be a routine affair or a habitual step. It is neither fairness to the Court which decided nor awareness of the precious public time lost what with a huge backlog of dockets waiting in the queue for disposal, for counsel to issue easy certificates for entertainment of review and fight over again the same battle which has been fought and lost. The Bench and the Bar, we are sure, are jointly concerned in the conservation of judicial time for maximum use. We regret to say that this case is typical of the unfortunate but frequent phenomenon of repeat performance with the review label as passport. Nothing which we did not hear then has been heard now, except a couple of rulings on points earlier put forward. May be, as counsel now urges and then pressed, our order refusing special leave was capable of a different course. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality. 18. Again in S Nagaraj and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. reported in 1993 Suppl. (4) SCC 595, the Apex Court held as under: “19. Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or re- consideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision legally and properly made. Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. Even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. In Raja Prithwi Chand Lal Choudhury v. Sukhraj Rai [AIR 1941 FC 1, 2 : 1940 FCR 78 : (1941) 1 MLJ Supp 45] the Court observed that even though no rules had been framed permitting the highest Court to review its order yet it was available on the limited and narrow ground developed by the Privy Council and the House of Lords. The Court approved the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Rajunder Narain Rae v. Bijai Govind Singh [(1836) 1 Moo PC 117 : 2 MIA 181 : 1 Sar 175] that an order made by the Court was final and could not be altered: “… nevertheless, if by misprision in embodying the judgments, by errors have been introduced, these Courts possess, by Common law, the same power which the Courts of record and statute have of rectifying the mistakes which have crept in …. The House of Lords exercises a similar power of rectifying mistakes made in drawing up its own judgments, and this Court must possess the same authority. The Lords have however gone a step further, and have corrected mistakes introduced through inadvertence in the details of judgments; or have supplied manifest defects in order to enable the decrees to be enforced, or have added explanatory matter, or have reconciled inconsistencies.” Basis for exercise of the power was stated in the same decision as under: “It is impossible to doubt that the indulgence extended in such cases is mainly owing to the natural desire prevailing to prevent irremediable injustice being done by a Court of last resort, where by some accident, without any blame, the party has not been heard and an order has been inadvertently made as if the party had been heard.” Rectification of an order thus stems from the fundamental principle that justice is above all. It is exercised to remove the error and not for disturbing finality. When the Constitution was framed the substantive power to rectify or recall the order passed by this Court was specifically provided by Article 137 of the Constitution. Our Constitution-makers who had the practical wisdom to visualise the efficacy of such provision expressly conferred the substantive power to review any judgment or order by Article 137 of the Constitution. And clause (c) of Article 145 permitted this Court to frame rules as to the conditions subject to which any judgment or order may be reviewed. In exercise of this power Order XL had been framed empowering this Court to review an order in civil proceedings on grounds analogous to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The expression, ‘for any other sufficient reason’ in the clause has been given an expanded meaning and a decree or order passed under misapprehension of true state of circumstances has been held to be sufficient ground to exercise the power. Apart from Order XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules this Court has the inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary in the interest of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court. The Court is thus not precluded from recalling or reviewing its own order if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for sake of justice. 19. Coming to the facts of this case the core issue is whether the decision to cancel the selection process undertaken by the State Level Police Recruitment Board and to carry on the selection by giving the responsibility to the Gauhati University by way of interviews was the issue assailed before this Court. Even if the notification dated 25.05.2016 and the OM Dated 25.05.2016 which is now been placed before the Court by the review petition and also the extract of the decision taken by the State Cabinet on 09.10.2018 in this regard is perused, in the opinion of the Court it does not render the judgments under review erroneous from any quarter. This Court does not find any error which persuades this Court to invoke its review jurisdiction. The question or whether the process of recruitment to be undertaken by way of interview by the Gauhati University and the correctness thereof, is an issue, which has been decided by Co-ordinate Bench, if the petitioners are aggrieved they have a remedy of intra-Court appeal. 20. In review jurisdiction the Court is not required to give a further opportunity of arguments to the review petitioners as it will amount to re-deciding or re-hearing the matter under the guise of a review. 21. There being no merit in the review petition and accordingly, the same therefore, stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant