IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5836 of 2009 AVINASH KUMAR & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitioners : M/S Sharda Nand Mishra Dhanjay Kr. Gupta Niveka Jha For the State : Mr. S.K. Ranjan, AC to SC 23 ----------- 2. 12.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority at Katihar by its order dated 25.3.2009/28.3.2009 recorded a reasoned finding of large scale illegalities in the counselling for appointment of teachers in the year 2008 in Kadwa Block, District-Katihar. He, therefore, by the same order, directed for fresh counselling. Subsequently, on 9.4.2009 he reviewed and recalled his earlier order dated 25.3.2009. The submission, therefore, is that the Appellate Authority, a quasi judicial body, a creation of a statute, has not been vested with the powers of review and, therefore, the order dated 9.4.2009 is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the State is unable to controvert the submission of the absence of power of review unless conferred by the statute. It has been held in (1987) 4 SCC 525 (Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) & ors.)at paragraph 11 as follows : “It is now well established that a quasi-judicial 2 authority cannot review its own order, unless the power of review is expressly conferred on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction. The Vice-Chancellor in considering the question of approval of an order of dismissal of the Principal, acts as a quasi- judicial authority. It is not disputed that the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 or of the Statutes of the University do not confer any power of review on the Vice-Chancellor. In the circumstances, it must be held that the Vice-Chancellor acted wholly without jurisdiction in reviewing her order dated January 24, 1987 by her order dated March 7, 1987. The said order of the Vice-Chancellor dated March 7, 1987 was a nullity.” This Court has gone through the order of the Appellate Authority dated 9.4.2009. The Court refrains from making any observation on the same. Perhaps the orders of the present nature are sufficient evidence of the need for serious consideration by the State authorities of the need to make appointment in accordance with Rule 3 of the notification dated 25.8.2008, creating the Authority, of persons trained in law as already provided for therein. The order dated 9.4.2009 is set aside. The writ application stands allowed in terms of the order of the Appellate Authority dated 25.3.2009/28.3.2009. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)