Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.

This Civil Review Application has been filed on behalf of the Central Selection Board of Constables and its officials.

2. By this application, they have sought review of the judgment and order of this Court dated 26.02.2015, passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1221/2012. On behalf of the review petitioners two grounds have been taken. Firstly, that even though they were necessary party in the appeal and had been so made, they were not noticed before the appeal was heard and allowed. Secondly, while allowing the appeal, the Division Bench took a view contrary to an earlier Division Bench Judgment, without noticing the said binding precedent. The earlier judgment of the Division Bench also related to the same recruitment process.

3. We have heard Sri Pushkar Narain Shahi, learned Senior Advocate, for the Review Petitioners and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Advocate, for the writ petitioners/appellants, who are the contesting respondents in this Review Application and, with their consent, this Review Application is being disposed of at this stage itself.

4. The dispute is in very narrow compass. On the first issue, that review petitioners i.e. the Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar, was a necessary party and had been made respondent in the Appeal, which was not noticed nor heard, and the appeal was disposed of. We can say that due to inadvertence this was done. But the legal effect would be that the appeal was disposed of without hearing and noticing the necessary party. Such an order suffers from procedural infirmity and the order has to be recalled on grounds of procedural review. Such power of procedural review is inherent in all courts, tribunals or authority. It is distinct from substantive review, as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Grindlays Bank v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal since reported in AIR 1981 SC 606; where in paragraph 13, it was held which reads as such :

13. …….. Furthermore, different considerations arise on review. The expression "review" is used in two distinct senses, namely, (1) a procedural review which is either inherent or implied in a court or Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension by it, and (2) a review on merits when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record. It is in the latter sense that the Court in Narshi Thakershi's case held that no review lies on merits unless a statute specifically provides for it, obviously when a review is sought due to a procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process, and such power inheres in every Court or Tribunal.

5. Thus, we have no option but to recall the judgment and order dated 26.02.2015, passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1221/2012, and to rehear the matter on its merit. As parties have appeared and pleadings being complete, we have heard the Letters Patent Appeal all over again in order to save time with consent of parties.

6. The facts are not in dispute. The writ petitioners had applied for recruitment of constables in the Bihar Police. The minimum educational qualification was matriculation. In the application form, they were required to give their category indicating whether they were candidates of EBC Schedule-I, BC Schedule-II or General Category. It may be noted that so far as scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates are concerned, there were different sets of form. The candidates had to indicate the same by number given against their Category. The candidates were not required to give the original certificates, which were to be verified at a latter stage. The candidates were required to give a declaration that, if any information given in the application form was found to be incorrect, their application would be rejected at any stage.

7. The writ petitioners had filled up their Categori