“27. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that it is the Director alone, who had jurisdiction to set aside the order of approval, and that the Regional Level Committee could not have reviewed its decision. The argument in that regard is noticed to be rejected for more than one reason. First and foremost, it is to be noticed that Regional Level Committee has merely corrected its stand to bring it in conformity with the provisions of law. Its earlier decision not to accord approval being in consonance with the law declared by larger Bench in Sadhna (Supra) has been restored. It is also relevant to note that the promotion of petitioner had already been challenged by respondent no. 6, by way of representation, and the Regional Level Committee had otherwise taken note of it, and all parties were put to notice in that regard. The subsequent order is otherwise in conformity with the position of law, as is interpreted by the larger Bench. The issue as to whether only the Director could pass such an order under Section 16 (E) 10, need not detain this Court any further, inasmuch as any interference with the decision of the Regional Level Committee, under challenge, would revive the approval granted to the petitioner's promotion on 30th December, 2016, based upon the judgement in Raeesul Hasan (Supra). Law is settled that this Court would not interfere with an order, which would revive an illegality. Such being the situation, I am of the opinion that approval to petitioner's promotion has rightly been withdrawn by the Regional Level Committee, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
