WP(C) 2042/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.MUSAHARY JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 1. Heard Mr N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr D.K.Sai kia, for the petitioner and Mr. Khatonier, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Assam. None appears for the respondent Nos 3 and 4. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 21.4.09 pa ssed by the Director of Higher Education, Assam, Kahilipara, whereby the earlier order of approval to the resolution No.6(a) dated 13.2.2001 communicated under Memo No. G(B) AC.76/2004/11 dated 10.01.05 was withdrawn with a direction to the College authority to act upon accordingly. 3. A little advertence to the facts of the case is necessary. The p etitioner applied for appointment to the post of lecturer in Geography Departmen t in Digboi College pursuant to an advertisement issued by the said College auth ority. On being selected, she was appointed as lecturer in geography at a fixed pay of Rs. 1,500/- per month and subsequently the special body of the College r esolved to convert one post of lecturer in Bengali Department to Geography. T he said resolution was forwarded to the respondent-Director for approval. Since the said resolution was pending unattended, the petitioner had to approach this court by filing a writ petition, namely WP(C) No. 2536/2004 which was disposed of on 6.4.04 with a direction to the respondent authorities to pass appropriate order. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent-Director vide his order dated 10.01.05 accorded approval to the resolution dated 13.2.2001. After the approva l was received, the Governing Body of the College by another resolution decided to convert the posts to some other department. Aggrieved by the said resolution, the petitioner again approached this court by filing a writ petition, being No. WP(C) 6444/06 which was disposed of on 11.11.2008 remanding the matter to the D irector of Higher Education, Assam for taking a decision after meticulously veri fying the relevant facts. The operative portion of the aforesaid judgment and or der dated 11.11.08 is quoted herein below: In the above view of the matter, the issue stands remanded to the Director of Higher Education, Assam for a decision thereon on a meticulous verification of a ll relevant facts. He would verify all relevant facts and records and decide as to whether his approval dated 10.01.2005 needs to be reviewed or endorsed. For t his, the said authority would be at liberty to initiate steps as would be felt n ecessary to arrive at a just and fair conclusion. To effectuate such a result bo th the parties would be notified and be afforded reasonable opportunity of heari ng. As the issue is pending for long, the exercise as ordered should be complete d within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order . Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this court, the respo ndent-Director has passed the impugned order dated 21.4.09 (Annexure IX to the w rit petition). 4. Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the relevant rules, namely, Assam Non-Government College Management Rules, 2001 provides no power to review the order of approval/decision taken by the Di rector and as such, the impugned order is unauthorized and illegal. According to him, the power of review must be provided in the Act or Rules and in absence of such power in the statute any order passed reviewing the earlier order is ille gal and unsustainable in law. He has taken me through Rules 14, 18 and 19 of the aforesaid Rules of 2001. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance o n the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi and Ors V s Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji , reported in 1971(3) SCC 844, wherein it is held that the power of review is not an inherent power and it must be conferr ed by law either specifically or by necessary implication. 5. Mr. Khatonier, learned Standing counsel for the Education Depart ment, relying on the averments made in the affidavit filed by the respondent-Dir ector, submits that the resolution dated 13.2.2001 was adopted by the Governing Body of the College and the same was approved by the respondent-Director at the time when there was no permission for opening the Geography Department in the Co llege and the petitioner was appointed against a non-sanctioned post on a fixed monthly salary w.e.f. 4.9.2000. It was subsequently found that the approval to t he resolution dated 13.2.01 was accorded by mistake ,and as such, the responden t-Director felt it necessary to review the earlier approval order dated 10.1.05 . Moreover, the Governing Body of the College by another resolution dated 4.12. 05 reviewed the earlier resolution and requested the respondent-Director to re-c onvert the Geography teacher to Computer Application Department. 6. I have carefully considered the pleadings and the submissions ma de by the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the subsequent resolu tion dated 4.12.05, if it is implemented , there would be no lecturer in the Geo graphy Department. On the other hand, it is found that the respondent-authoritie s have already given permission for opening the Geography Department in the said College. If that be so, there was necessity for retaining the post of geography teacher and no justification could be given in passing the impugned order date d 21.4.09, inasmuch as, a particular department cannot be left without any teach er. 7. It has been submitted at the bar that there were 3(three) posts in the department of Bengali and on conversion of one post to the Geography De partment , there would remain 2(two) more posts of lecturer in the Bengali Dep artment. From Annexure IX to the writ petition, it is found that enrolment of s tudents in the Bengali Depatment has been limited to maximum 21 in the year 2000 -2001 in the T.D.C. Ist year. As per the aforesaid enrolment chart of the Colle ge during 2008-2009, there were only 16 students in the Ist year TDC, 14 student s in the 2nd year TDC and Nil in the 3rd year TDC. If it is so, the department of Bengali could be managed by existing two lecturers. As per Annexure X to the writ petition, the enrolment of Geography Department in the years 2008-2009 is a s under: TDC Ist year 16 TDC 2nd year 16 TDC 3rd year 11 8. Comparatively there is better enrolment in the department of geo graphy in the said College, but unfortunately 1(one) lecturer has to manage as m any as 3 courses, namely, TDC Ist year, 2nd year and 3rd year which is humanly n ot possible and not to the advantage of the students. In my considered view, the first resolution dated 13.2.01 adopted by the Governing Body of the College was adopted with a view to cope with the demand of a lecturer in the geography dep artment and it was rightly approved by the respondent-Director. I see no justifi cation in passing the impugned review order by the respondent-Director, no matt er the College Governing Body passed a resolution on 4.12.05. 9. The power to review its own order by an authority is not availab le unless it is provided in the statute itself. This being the settled law and n o provision having been made in the ’Assam Non-Government College Management Rul es, 2001’ as discussed earlier, in my considered view, the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Patel Narshi’s case (Supra) would be applicable to the prese nt case. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I ho ld that the impugned order dated 21.4.09 was passed by the respondent-Director w ithout being authorized by the Rules and the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the same is set aside and quashed. 11. I pass no order as regards the prayer for regularization of the services of the petitioner. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a representation before the appropriate authority for consideration and regular ization of her services in accordance with existing rules, law and procedure. 12. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition s tands disposed of.