IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17863 of 2010 Nitu Devi Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors 3/ 09/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and for respondent No 8. The petitioner and respondent No.8 are in contest for appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika as agents of the Government for dissemination of welfare schemes. Respondent No.8 was terminated on allegations of dereliction in duty by the District Magistrate on 15.2.2007. She carried it in appeal to the Commissioner who ruled on 22.9.2008 that her termination had been done in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The action of the respondents to this extent is fully in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in 2004(2) P.L.J.R. 833 ( Smt. Sajjan Devi & Ors.vs. State of Bihar & Ors.). After the individual incumbent on the post of Commissioner changed, the new incumbent reviewed the earlier order at the request of respondent No.8 and allowed the appeal on 27.9.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Commissioner did not have any powers of review and that it is a power which has to be specifically 2 conferred. There can be no suo motu powers of review. Learned counsel for the respondent No.8 invites the attention of the Court to the age of the petitioner mentioned in the affidavit affirmed on 26.10.2010 in support of the writ application as 19 years. He contends that if the selection was under an advertisement of 2007, the petitioner on her own showing was clearly underage. The power of review is not an inherent power but draws sustenance from express authorization. In absence of such express authorization in law, the order in purported exercise of powers for review is a complete illegality. The legality of an order without such authorization has been considered by the Supreme Court in Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania, (2010) 9 SCC 437 at paragraph Nos.12 as follows:- “12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In the absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction.” It is equally well settled law that even the power of review is not an appeal in disguise as held in 3 (2000)7 SCC 296 ( Delhi Admn. v. Gurdip Singh Uban) at paragraph-15 as follows:- 15. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. this Court stated that there was a real distinction between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by “error apparent” and that a “review” was by no means an “appeal” in disguise. This legal position was reiterated in subsequent judgments of this Court. There is no power in the Commissioner under the guidelines for selection of Anganwari Sewikas to review his own orders passed as an appellate authority. Moreover the power has been exercised more as an appeal in disguise. The subsequent order dated 27.9.2010 is therefore not sustainable and is set aside. The respondents in their counter affidavit at paragraph-9 have stated that a fresh process of selection has been initiated and advertisement published. The parties are at liberty to apply in response to the same and the issue of age of the petitioner is left open for consideration by the authorities. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)