IMPORTANT POINT
The court has the power to review its own judgment when a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found, and the doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit can be invoked to allow the review petition.

JUDGMENT :

M. Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned A.G., Assam, assisted by Mr. N. J. Khataniar, learned counsel for the review petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. N. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This review petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.10.2017 passed in WP(C) 5002/2012, on the ground that when the State Government was in the process of complying with the direction passed by this Court that a scheme should be framed for Siksha Sarathis working for more than 10 years, to be allowed to work till their normal retirement age, the State Government found that no Siksha Sarathis had worked for more than the 11 months contractual period.

3. The learned AG, Assam submits that this Court had directed the State Government to frame a scheme for Siksha Sarathis, to get the same benefits given to Muster Roll workers, worked charged workers and casual workers, as had been directed in the case of State of Assam vs. Sri Upen Das (WA 45/2014), which was decided on 08.06.2017. He submits that the scheme was to be framed for Siksha Sarathis, who had worked for the last 10 years, in terms of the direction passed in the order dated 26.10.2017 in WP(C) 5002/2012. This direction had been made on the basis of the finding of this Court in para 52 of the impugned judgment and order, wherein it has been stated that the engagement of the Siksha Sarathis is now in the second decade.

4. The learned AG, Assam submits that this finding of the Court was ex-facie erroneous and not based on any fact or document. As such, the subsequent direction passed by this Court for framing a scheme for Siksha Sarathis, who had worked for more than 10 years, could not be implemented. He accordingly submits that as the direction made for framing a scheme has been made on an apparent error of fact, which was palpable from the pleadings, the subsequent direction was accordingly un-implementable.

5. The learned AG, Assam submitted that this Court was not made aware of the order dated 17.11.2005 passed in WP(C) 6739/2005, wherein the Single Judge had recorded the submission of the Mission Director, Assam Sarba Siksha Abhijan Mission, who had stated that the scheme for appointment of Siksha Sarathis had been discontinued and by and large no Siksha Sarathis were in service except a few cases, whose period of contractual appointment was not over. As such, the impugned judgment and order was not implementable.

6. The learned AG, Assam accordingly prays that the review petition should be allowed and the impugned judgment and order should be recalled.

7. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, on the other hand, submits that the review petition is not maintainable though he admits that the finding of this Court in para 42 that Siksha Sarathis were in their second decade of engagement was a wrong finding. He submits that the Siksha Sarathis had worked for 7 to 8 years. He however submits that as the said wrong finding of facts made by this Court required scrutiny of the documents and was a long drawn process, the conditions required for allowing a review petition was absent. It is submitted that there being no error apparent on the face of the record, the review petition should be dismissed.

8. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

9. The prayer for review of the impugned judgment and order is only on two grounds:-

(i) That on trying to implement the direction of this Court to frame a scheme for Siksha Sarathis, who had been working for the last 10 years, the State Government found that no Siksha Sarathis had worked for 10 years, and (ii) That the direction for implementation of a scheme for the Siksha Sarathis was based on a finding made by this Court in para 42 of the impugned judgment and order dated 26.10.2017, that the initial engagement of Siksha Sarathis for 11 months had been extended for more than a decade. The review petitioners’ case is thus confined to th