well advised not to elaborate these issues since the petition of Rakesh Godara is pending before the learned Single Judge in which these legal issues would and need to be decided. The impugned order dated 25.02.2021, however, would have to be set aside for the simple reason that the learned Single Judge had exercised extraordinary power of suo moto review of his own order without their being any substantive proceedings instituted by any of the persons, who claimed to be aggrieved by the implementation of the order by the Government. The petitioner Rakesh Godara had challenged the select list drawn by the Government on the basis of judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.07.2020. It is still open to the learned Single Judge to test the legality of the Government order in legal terms in such proceedings having regard to the judgment in case of Kuldeep Kumar and others. However, on the ground that the list drawn by the Government was on account of some lack of clarity in the said order dated 20.07.2020, which needed to be clarified or the directions issued needed to be reviewed, the suo moto power to recall or review without full hearing of all issues and all parties concerned, ought not to have been exercised. We have reproduced the relevant portion of the order of the learned Single Judge in order to demonstrate that this objection of necessary parties not being present before the Court was raised more than once. This objection was rejected on the ground that none of the counsel could satisfy the Court that the direction contained in para 51 of the judgment dated 20.07.2020, if read in isolation, is within the precincts of the controversy and otherwise in conformity with law. Whatever be the reasons and grounds for review or recall of the earlier order, when it was pointed out by the counsel
