Jharkhand High Court
Satvat Infosol Private Limited vs Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission on 6 April, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Deepak Roshan
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Review No.13 of 2026
----
1. Satvat Infosol Private Limited, a company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 and continuing under
the Companies Act, 2013, having its registered office at
Flat No.1-A, 1st Floor No.32, Devadaya Apartments, 1st
Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, P.O.-Adyar, P.S.-Adyar,
District-Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600020; through its duly
authorized representative Sri Shailendra Kumar Prasad,
aged about 37 years, son of Sri Shankar Prasad,
resident of 11-C, Bediadanga 2nd Lane, P.O.-Tiljala,
P.S.-Kasba, District-Kolkata-700039 (West Bengal);
2. Ramesh K.J., aged about 59 years, son of K.R.
Janardhan, Director, Satvat Infosol Private Limited,
resident of No.117/2-3A-Gurukripa, Srinivasamurthy
Avenue, Adyar, Chennai 600020, Tamil Nadu, through
his Power of Attorney Holder Sri Shaildra Kumar
Prasad, aged about 37 years, son of Sri Shankar
Prasad, resident of 11-C, Bediadanga 2nd Lane, P.O.-
Tiljala, P.S.-Kasba, District-Kolkata-700039 (West
Bengal). ... ... Petitioners/Petitioners
Versus
1. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, a statutory
body constituted under the Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission Act, 2008, having its registered office at
Chaibagan, Kalinagar, Namkum, P.O. & P.S.-Namkum,
District-Ranchi-834010; through its secretary;
2. Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission,
having its registered office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar,
Namkum, P.O. & P.S.-Namkum, District-Ranchi-834010;
3. Joint Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having its registered office at Chaibagan,
Kalinagar, Namkum, P.O. & P.S.-Namkum, District-
-1-
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
Ranchi-834010;
4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having its registered office at Chaibagan,
Kalinagar, Namkum, P.O. & P.S.-Namkum, District-
Ranchi-834010. ... ... Respondents/Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Akash Ajit Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Advocate
Ms. Amrita Singh, Advocate
Ms. Khushi Mahendra, Advocate
For the JSSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate
--------
C.A.V. on 10.03.2026 Pronounced on 06.04.2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer
1. The instant review petition has been filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking review of the order
dated 18.12.2024 passed in Civil Review No.116 of 2024,
whereby and whereunder, the review petition has been
dismissed declining to review the original order passed by the
writ court in W.P.(C) No.2911 of 2024.
Factual Matrix
2. Before considering the ground agitated in the instant
petition for review of the order, the factual background of the
case, needs to be referred as under: –
(i) It is the case of the review petitioners that Jharkhand
Staff Selection Commission (in short “JSSC”) had issued an
-2-
2026:JHHC:9848-DBExpression of Interest (EOI) dated 16.11.2021 inviting
applications for empanelment of agencies to undertake certain
examination related and allied services. The EOI was not
specific to any one particular examination. In pursuant to the
said EOI, the petitioners submitted its detailed response,
fulfilling all eligibility conditions and enclosing requisite
documents. Upon evaluation of the same, the petitioners were
duly empanelled by JSSC and subsequently, executed a
General Agreement for empanelment on 05.01.2022.
(ii) Subsequently, the respondent-commission (respondent
no.1 to the writ petition) floated a specific tender/request of
rates for end-to-end conduct and management of the OMR
based Jharkhand General Graduate Level Combined
Competitive Examination 2023 (JGGLCCE). Upon finding the
petitioners’ bid to be successful, the respondent issued a work
order/letter of intent on 15.06.2023, followed by the execution
of a specific service agreement in respect of this examination on
16.06.2023. The contractual obligations in respect of the
conduct of the JGGLCCE examination, were performed by the
petitioners (review petitioners herein) in accordance with the
standards and directions prescribed by the respondent-
commission.
(iii) On successful completion of the first phase of the
examination, the petitioners were shocked to see a public
announcement dated 31.01.2024, stating that due to an alleged
-3-
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
leak of the question paper, the examination already conducted
stood cancelled and other exams were deferred. An FIR had
been lodged against unknown persons in this regard.
Subsequently, a Special Task Force was constituted to
investigate into the alleged leak of the question paper. The
petitioners were duly cooperated with the investigation.
(iv) Thereafter, the petitioners received a show cause
notice from respondent no.1 on 12.02.2024, asking it to show
cause that why it should not be blacklisted for its “suspicious
role and horrid performance” in the concerned examination.
The petitioners immediately challenged this show cause notice
before this Court in W.P.(C) No.904 of 2024.
(v) During pendency of the said writ petition, the
respondent no.1 passed an administrative order dated
25.04.2024. In terms of the said order, the petitioners were
debarred from taking part in all secret works and of all
upcoming examinations to be conducted by the respondent
no.1 for a period of three years.
3. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the decision taken by
the authority, has approached to the High Court by filing the
writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2911 of 2024 and this Court by
vide order dated 11.07.2024 has dismissed the said writ
petition. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the
aforesaid order dated 11.07.2024 is being quoted as under: –
“5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
-4-
2026:JHHC:9848-DBafter going after across the record, it appears that the
petitioner has suppressed the fact before this Court and
has not come to the Court with clean hands and more so
when this Court poses a question, emphatically learned
counsel for the appellant says that no such clause is
available under the contract thereby, action taken for
black-listing of the petitioner for a period of three years
cannot sustain but in view of the contract (NIT) as has
been pointed by the learned counsel for the respondents
it clearly specifies a condition that the EMD shall stand
forfeited in addition to blacklisting of the empanelled
agency for a period of three years.
6. If such a condition is made available and the same is
invoked for blacklisting the petitioner, we do not find
any error in the order passed by the respondents-
authority.”
4. The review petitioners, thereafter, have filed a review
application being Civil Review No.116 of 2024 before this Court
for review of the order dated 18.12.2024.
5. This Court has found no ground to review the order and
as such, said review petition was dismissed, vide order dated
18th December, 2024.
6. The review petitioners, thereafter, have approached to the
Hon’ble Apex Court by filing S.L.P. being Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Diary No(s).7802 of 2025 challenging both the orders,
i.e., order dated 11.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.2911 of 2024
and order dated 18th December, 2024 passed in Civil Review
No.116 of 2024.
7. The Hon’ble Apex Court, vide order dated 15.07.2025
passed in Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 7802/2025
-5-
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
has declined to interfere with the order dated 11.07.2024
passed in W.P.(C) No.2911 of 2024 and order dated 18th
December, 2024 passed in Civil Review No.116 of 2024.
However, liberty has been granted to file review in the pretext of
the fact that the petitioners have not been charge-sheeted, for
ready reference, the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary
No(s).7802 of 2025 is being quoted as under: –
“Heard the learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners.
Delay Condoned.
We find no reason to interfere with
the impugned orders passed by the High
Court. However, liberty is given to the
petitioners to file a review petition in view
of the fact that the petitioners have not
been chargesheeted.
The Special Leave Petition are
disposed of, accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, shall
also stand disposed of.”
8. The instant review petition has been filed in pursuant to
such liberty having been granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
9. The ground, therefore, has been taken that the petitioners
since have not been charge-sheeted and as such, the decision
taken to blacklist needs to be reviewed as also the order passed
by this Court also needs to be reviewed for the purpose of
hearing the matter afresh on merit.
Submission of learned senior counsel for the review
petitioners
10. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the review
-6-
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
petitioners has submitted that since the petitioners have not
been charge-sheeted and as such, it is a fit case where the
order passed by this Court is fit to be reviewed.
11. The reason for advancing this argument is that the
criminal case has been instituted on the same set of allegation
and even after submission of four charge-sheets, the
petitioners’ culpability have not been found and as such, on the
said ground, the order dated 18.12.2024 passed in Civil Review
No.116 of 2024 by this Court is fit to be reviewed.
Submission of the learned counsel for the Opp. Party-JSSC
12. While on the other hand, Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned
counsel for the JSSC has submitted that it is incorrect on the
part of the review petitioners to take the ground that the
charge-sheet has not been submitted, rather, the investigation
is still going on, as would be evident from the charge-sheet
submitted on 30.08.2025, wherein, the investigation is
continuing so far as the review petitioners are concerned.
13. To that effect, instruction has been received by Mr. Sanjoy
Piprawall, learned counsel for the JSSC from the authority
concerned. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the
learned senior counsel for the review petitioners.
14. The order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is dated
15.07.2025 but the review petitioners being conscious that the
investigation against them is going on, had suppressed the
aforesaid fact and by misleading the fact about investigation is
-7-
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
going on, has got liberty to file review on the pretext of the fact
that the petitioners have not been charge-sheeted. Actually, the
fact is that the investigation is still going on against the review
petitioners.
15. It has been submitted that even otherwise, the petitioners
have got no case for review merely because the charge-sheet
will be submitted, rather, the culpability has been found to be
there against the review petitioners, based upon that, the order
of blacklisting has been passed on the basis of defiance of the
terms and conditions of the Contract, as has been taken note
by this Court while passing the order dated 18.12.2024 in Civil
Review No.116 of 2024, as such, the parameter in connection
with the defiance of terms and conditions of the Contract, will
lead in consequence of blacklisting is different to that of judicial
proceeding having independent to each other. Merely because
even in a case where the charge-sheet has been submitted then
also the order passed by this Court is not fit to be reviewed due
to the reasons that the decision to blacklist the petitioners has
been taken after following all due procedure, as also, after
following the principle of natural justice and the ground which
has been shown while responding to the show cause has been
found to be not satisfactory, hence, the order of blacklisting
since is in defiance of terms and conditions of the Contract
being the decision taken in the independent proceeding having
no concern with the judicial proceeding, moreover, in the
-8-
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
present case, the investigation is still going on.
Analysis
15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the materials as available on record.
16. This Court, first needs to examine the ground that the
petitioners have not been charge-sheeted as has been taken as
a ground to review the order passed by this Court dated
18.12.2024 passed in Civil Review No.116 of 2024 but before
considering the aforesaid ground the underlying principle to
exercise the power of review needs to be referred herein.
17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Moran Mar Basselios
Catholicos and Anr. vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius
and Ors., [AIR 1954 SC 526], particularly, at paragraph-32
has observed as under:
“32. Before going into the merits of the case it is as well
to bear in mind the scope of the application for review
which has given rise to the present appeal. It is needless
to emphasis that the scope of an application for review is
much more restricted than that of an appeal. Under the
provisions in the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure
which is similar in terms to Order XL VII, Rule I of our
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court of review has
only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive
limits fixed by the language used therein. It may allow a
review on three specified, grounds, namely (i) discovery of
new and important matter or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant’s
knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time
when the decree was passed, (ii) mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record and (iii) for any other
sufficient reason.”
-9-
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
18. Likewise, in the case of Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon Vrs.
Union of India, (1980) Supp. SCC 562, the Hon’ble Apex
Court observed that a review of an earlier order cannot be done
unless the Court is satisfied that the material error which is
manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of
justice or undermine its soundness. The observations made are
as under:
“12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved
to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the
party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot
review our earlier order unless satisfied that material
error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its
soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow
Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib 1975 1 SCC 674 this
Court observed: ‘A review of a judgment is a serious step
and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring
omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in
earlier by judicial fallibility. ….. The present stage is not a
virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the
normal feature of finality.”
19. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320
has observed that review proceedings have to be strictly
confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As
long as the point sought to be raised in the review application
has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not
entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an
alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review
jurisdiction were succinctly summarized as under:
– 10 –
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
“20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of
review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within
knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by
him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other
sufficient reason” has been interpreted in Chajju Ram v.
Neki, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios
Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasiusto mean “a
reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those
specified in the rule”. The same principles have been
reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron
Ores Ltd.,.
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:–
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough
to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the
original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error,
manifest on the face of the order, undermines its
soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby
an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies
only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot
be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not
be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within
the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to
be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief
sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been
negatived.”
– 11 –
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
20. It is evident from the aforesaid judgments that the power
of review is to be exercised if there is any error occurred on the
face of the order or the factual aspect could not have been
brought to the notice of this Court in spite of the due diligence
having been taken in the matter of making available the factual
aspect of the relevant documents.
21. The position of law is well settled, as would appear from
the reference of the judgment made hereinabove that the review
of the judgment can only be made if the new fact has come
which could not have been brought to the notice of the Court in
spite of the due diligence, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. v. Most
Rev. Mar Poulose (supra).
22. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that the power of
review can be exercised only the two folds ground, i.e., (i) if
there is any error apparent on the face of the order; or (ii) the
fact which could not have been brought to the notice of the
court in spite of the due diligence having been taken by the
concerned party.
23. Further, law is well settled that a review petition, has a
limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in
disguise”, as has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715, for
ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid
judgment is quoted as under:
– 12 –
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
“Under Order 47 Rule 1CPC a judgment may be open to
review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent
on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident
and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can
hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the
record justifying the court to exercise its power of review
under Order 47 Rule 1CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction
under Order 47 Rule 1CPCit is not permissible for an
erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review
petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and
cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”
24. Similarly, in S. Murali Sundaram Versus Jothibai
Kannan and Others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185 the Hon’ble
Apex Court observed as under:
“15. While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of
this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC
are required to be referred to? In the case of Perry Kansagra
(supra) this Court has observed that while exercising the
review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1
read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in
appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of
the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed
that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that
power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake
but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised
within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of
power. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and
exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the
controversy has been finally decided. After considering
catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and
principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as
under:
“(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have
to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47
Rule 1.
– 13 –
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or
error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on
the face of record must be such an error which must strike
one on mere looking at the record and would not require any
long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there
may conceivably by two opinions. (iii) Power of review may
not be exercised on the ground that the decision was
erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be
exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to
include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an
advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated
by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem
gravabit.”
25. Review can also be sought when the order discloses some
error apparent on the face of record or on grounds analogous
thereto. These are all grounds which find mention in various
judicial pronouncements right from the earliest time as well as
in the Rules of Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code as
permissible grounds of review.
26. The term “mistake or error apparent” by its very
connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the
record of the case and does not require detailed examination,
scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position.
If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long
debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error
apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47
Rule 1 CPC.
27. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to
review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the
– 14 –
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to
be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be
an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court
to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
28. In the very recent judgment in the case of Sanjay Kumar
Agarwal Vrs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 1406, the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the
provision of Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. the proposition has
been laid down to entertain the review, as has been held at
paragraph 16.1 to 16.7, which reads as under:-
“16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and
departure from that principle is justified only when
circumstances of a substantial and compelling character
make it necessary to do so.
16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be
detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be
an error apparent on the face of record e justifying the court
to exercise its power of review.
16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1
CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be
“reheard and corrected”.
16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.
16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have
already been addressed and decided.
16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error
which, mere looking at the record should strike and it
should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on
the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.–”
29. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion it is evident that
– 15 –
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
while power of review may be inherent in the High Court to
review its own order passed in a writ petition, the same has to be
exercised on well-recognized and established grounds on which
judicial orders are reviewed. For example, the power may be
exercised on the discovery of some new and important matter or
evidence which was not within the knowledge of the parties
seeking review despite due exercise of diligence when the order
was made.
30. The term “mistake or error apparent” by its very
connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the
record of the case and does not require detailed examination,
scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position.
If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long
debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error
apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of invoking
the jurisdiction of review. Further an error which is not self-
evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can
hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record
justifying the Court to exercise its power of review.
31. It is evident from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court that the parameters have been fixed in the recent
judgment in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vrs. State
Tax Officer (1) & Anr. (supra), and in sum and substance, the
power of review can only be exercised if there is error apparent
on the face of order or the fact could not have been produced in
– 16 –
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
spite of due diligence.
32. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case by
taking into consideration the ground, as has been agitated on
behalf of the petitioners, we are now proceeding to examine as
to whether, the same can be said to be a ground to exercise the
power of review.
33. It is evident from the factual aspect that Jharkhand Staff
Selection Commission (in short “JSSC”) had issued an
Expression of Interest (EOI) dated 16.11.2021 inviting
applications for empanelment of agencies to undertake certain
examination related and allied services. In pursuant to the said
EOI, the petitioners/review petitioners submitted its detailed
response, and upon evaluation of the same, the petitioners were
duly empanelled by JSSC and subsequently, executed a
General Agreement for empanelment on 05.01.2022.
34. Subsequently, the respondent-commission (respondent
no.1 to the writ petition) floated a specific tender/request of
rates for end-to-end conduct and management of the OMR
based Jharkhand General Graduate Level Combined
Competitive Examination 2023 (JGGLCCE). Upon finding the
petitioners’ bid to be successful, the respondent issued a work
order/letter of intent on 15.06.2023, followed by the execution
of a specific service agreement in respect of this examination on
16.06.2023. The contractual obligations in respect of the
conduct of the JGGLCCE examination, were performed by the
– 17 –
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
petitioners (review petitioners herein) in accordance with the
standards and directions prescribed by the respondent-
commission.
35. On successful completion of the first phase of the
examination, the petitioners were shocked to see a public
announcement dated 31.01.2024, stating that due to an alleged
leak of the question paper, the examination already conducted
stood cancelled and other exams were deferred. An FIR had
been lodged against unknown persons in this regard.
Subsequently, a Special Task Force was constituted to
investigate into the alleged leak of the question paper. The
petitioners were duly cooperated with the investigation.
36. On 31.01.2024, due to an alleged leak of the question
paper, the examination already conducted stood cancelled and
other exams were deferred. An FIR had been lodged against
unknown persons in this regard. Subsequently, a Special Task
Force was constituted to investigate into the alleged leak of the
question paper.
37. Thereafter, the petitioners received a show cause notice
from respondent no.1 on 12.02.2024, asking it to show cause
that why it should not be blacklisted for its “suspicious role and
horrid performance” in the concerned examination. The
petitioners immediately challenged this show cause notice
before this Court in W.P.(C) No.904 of 2024.
38. During pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent
– 18 –
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
no.1 passed an administrative order dated 25.04.2024. In
terms of the said order, the petitioners were debarred from
taking part in all secret works and of all upcoming
examinations to be conducted by the respondent no.1 for a
period of three years.
39. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the decision taken by
the authority, has approached to the High Court by filing the
writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2911 of 2024 and but vide order
dated 11.07.2024, the said the writ petition was dismissed by
this Court.
40. The review petitioners, thereafter, have filed a review
application being Civil Review No.116 of 2024 before this Court
for review of the order dated 11.07.2024.
41. This Court has found no ground to review the order and
as such, said review petition was dismissed vide order dated
18th December, 2024.
42. The review petitioners, thereafter, have approached to the
Hon’ble Apex Court by filing S.L.P. being Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Diary No(s).7802 of 2025 challenging both the orders,
i.e., order dated 11.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.2911 of 2024
and order dated 18th December, 2024 passed in Civil Review
No.116 of 2024.
43. The Hon’ble Apex Court, vide order dated 15.07.2025 has
declined to interfere with the order dated 11.07.2024 passed in
W.P.(C) No.2911 of 2024 and order dated 18th December, 2024
– 19 –
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
passed in Civil Review No.116 of 2024. However, liberty has
been granted to file review in the pretext of the fact that the
petitioners have not been charge-sheeted
44. The instant review petition has been filed in pursuant to
such liberty having been granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
45. The sole ground has been taken as per the liberty granted
by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 15.07.2025 that the
charge-sheet has not been submitted against the review
petitioners, therefore it is fit ground to review the order dated
11.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.2911 of 2024.
46. While on the other hand, the ground has been agitated on
behalf of the JSSC, the contesting respondent herein that the
investigation against the review petitioners is still going
therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for review
petitioners is not fit to be accepted.
47. In the aforesaid context, this Court has gone into the
record, particularly, the charge-sheet which has been
submitted against the accused persons which is available at
page no. 75 of the paper book in order to ascertain the factual
aspect, as to whether the final form has been submitted by way
of submission of the final charge-sheet and has found from the
aforesaid record that although, the charge-sheet has been
submitted against some of the accused persons but the
investigation is still going on against the review petitioners. The
said charge-sheet was submitted on 30.08.2025.
– 20 –
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
48. It is, thus, evident that the day when the liberty has been
sought for from the Hon’ble Apex Court to file review against
the order on the ground that the petitioners have not been
charge-sheeted, is factually incorrect and by suppressing the
factual aspect before the Hon’ble Apex Court about continuance
of investigation, such liberty was sought for but actually the
fact is that as on the date, when the order was passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court on 15.07.2025, the investigation against
the review petitioners was going on which is still continuing on
as would be evident from the charge-sheet dated 30.08.2025,
the relevant part of the said charge-sheet is being referred as
under:-
“क ांड क स र ांश यह है कक यह क ण्ड व किनी मधुकमत कुम री पकत-गौर ग
ां
महत , पत -क ककल एजेन्सी, ल अर वर्द्ध म न कम्प उण्ड, थ न -ल लपुर,
कजल -र ाँची के टां ककत आवेिन के आध र पर किन ांक 28.01.2024 क
झ रखण्ड र ज्य में हुए झ रखण्ड स म न्य स्न तक य ग्यत ध री सांयुक्त
प्रकतय कगत परीक्ष -2023 (JGGLCCE) के अन्तगधत परीक्ष से पूवध प्रश्न पत्र
कलक कर कि च र के आर प में कलप्त अज्ञ त अकियुक्त ां के कवरूर्द् िजध
ककय गय है।
अबतक के अनुसांध न व किनी, गव ह ां के बय न, घटन स्थल क कनरीक्षण,
तकनीकी स क्ष्य सांकलन, जती सूकच, प्रिश ां के अवल कन, पयधवेक्षण,
कगरफ्त र अकियुक्त ां के अपर ध स्वीक र क्तक्त बय न, अबतक के अनुसांध न,
परक्तस्थकतजनक स क्ष्य एवां तथ् ां के आध र पर यह क ांड ध र –
467/468/420/120बी ि ०ि०कव० एवां 66 आई०टी० एक्ट तथ 12
Jharkhand Competitive Examination (Prevention and
Redressal of unfair Means in Recruitment) Act.2023 केअांतगधत अप्र थकमकी अकियुक्त 1. म ० शहनव ज ईम म 2. म ० शहज ि
ईम म उर्ध सज्जि ईम म ि न ां कपत म ० शमीम 3. म ० शमीम पे०-स्व०
कसकिक तीन ां स ०-नय सर य, ईिग ह मुहल्ल , थ न -नगडी कजल -रॉची 4.
अकिषेक कुम र उर्ध अकिषेक र ज पे०- सांजीव कुम र, स ०- इां गकलश
– 21 –
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
मुहल्ल , व डध नां0-04, थ न +कजल -लखीसर य (कबह र) 5. र हुल कपयूष उमध
28 वषध, पे० प्रम ि कुम र कसह स ०-र्तेहपुर, थ न -न थनगर, कजल –
ि गलपुर (कबह र) 6. सत्येन्द्र कुम र पे०-स्व० र जेन्द्र प्रस ि, स ० कशव नगर,
ध न -नव ि , कजल -नव ि (कबह र) वतधम न पत फ्लैट नां0-204, ह म
कुल य अप टध मेंट, कच्ची तल ब, थ न -गिध नीब ग कजल -पटन (कबह र) 7.
िीन न थ कुम र पे०- उमेश प्रस ि कसह स ०-हरन टे क री, आकध किबररय ,
थ न -टे क री, कजल -गय (कबह र) 8. शैलेन्द्र पटन (कबह र) 9. ररजव न,
कबह र कवध ररजव न, कबह र कवध न सि क म शधल 10. रकव ककश र पे०-
स्व० कनरां जन प्रस ि स ०-नई मुहल्ल ड लटे नगांज, थ न -शहर, पल मू कजल –
पल मू 11. अमन कसांह उम्र-25 वषध पे०-उमेश कुम र कसांह उर्ध पप्पु कसांह
स ०-जैतपुर असनी थ न उिवांतनगर कजल -ि जपुर कबह र 12 म नु गुजधर
उर्ध म नु कुम र पे०-म ांगे र म स ०-बडी र मकौर थ न -क ांधन , जनपि
श मली, उ0प्र0 13. सांकेश कुम र गौड पे०-र मन र यण ग ाँड स ०- क जी
म हल्ल थ न -मनेर कजल -पटन कबह र 14. कबरे न्द्र कुम र शम ध उर्ध टु न्नु पे०-
स्व० जगिीश प्रस ि शम ध स ०-सुल्त नपुर शकनचरव स्थ न ि न पुर कैंट
थ न -ि न पुर कजल -पटन 15. सांजीव कुम र उर्ध लुट्टन मुक्तखय पे०-जनक
ककश र प्रस ि स ०-बलव थ न -नगरनौस कजल न लांि कबह र 16. र केश
रां जन उर्ध रॉकी पे०-सुरेश चौधरी स र-गजेन्द्र कबघ ि कील पुर थ न –
कहलस कजल -न लांि कबह र 17. अकवन श कुम र उम्र-29 वषध पे०-चन्दे श्वर
प्रस ि स ०-ज ग कबगह थ न -चांडी कजल -न लांि कबह र 18. आशुत ष र य
पे०-मुक्की न र यण र य स ०-र मकृष्ण नगर, ध न कॉल नी पटन एवां अन्य
अज्ञ त के कवरूर्द् सत्य प य गय है।
अनुसांध न के क्रम में 1. म ० शहनव ज ईम म 2. म ० शहज ि ईम म उर्फध
सज्ज ि इम म ि न ां कपत म ० शमीम 3. म ० शमीम पे०-स्व० कसकडक तीन ां
स ०-नय सर य, ईिग ह मुहल्ल , थ न -नगडी कजल -रॉची 4. अकिषेक कुम र
उर्ध अकिषेक र ज पे०- सांजीव कुम र स ०- इां गकलश मुहल्ल , व डध नां0-04,
थ न कजल -लखीसर य (कबह र) 5. र हुल कपयूष पे०- प्रम ि कुम र कसह स ०-
र्तेहपुर थ न -न थनगर, कजल -ि गलपुर (कबह र) 6. सत्येन्द्र कुम र पे०-स्व०
र जेन्द्र प्रस ि स ०- कशव नगर थ न -नव ि , कजल -नव ि (कबह र) वतधम न
प्रत र्लैड नां0-204, ओम कुल य अप टध मेंट, कच्ची तल व, थ न -गिध नीब ग
कजल -पटन (कबह र) 7. िीन न थ कुम र उर्ध ग ल्डे न पे० उमेश प्रस ि कसह
स ०- हरन टे क री, आकध किबररय थ न टे क री, कजल -गय (कबह र) के
कवरुर्द् ध र -467/468/420/120बी ि ०ि०कव० एवां 66 आई०टी० एक्ट तथ
12 Jharkhand Competitive Examination (Prevention and
– 22 –
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
Redressal of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act.2023 के अांतगधत
आर प पत्र सांख्य 65/2024 किन क 09.05.2024 समकपधत ककय गय है।
तथ क डध के अ०आ० अकियुक्त 01. अमन कसांह उम्र-25 वषध पे०-उमेश
कुम र कसांह उर्ध पप्पु कसांह स ०-जैतपुर असनी थ न -उिवांतनगर कजल –
ि जपुर कबह र 02. म नु गुज्जर उर्ध म नु कुम र पे०-म ांगे र म स ०-बडी
र मकौर थ न क ां धन जनपि श मली उ०प्र० 03. सांकेश कुम र गौड पे०-
र मन र ण गौड स ०-क जी मुहल्ल थ न -मनेर कजल -पटन कबह र 04,
कबरे न्द्र कुम र शम ध उर्ध टु न्नु पे०-स्व जगिीश प्रस ि शम ध स ०-सुलत नपुर
शनीचरव स्थ न ि न पुर कैंट थ न -ि न पुर कजल -पटन कबह र के कवरुर्द्
स क्ष्य सांकल्न कर पय ध प्त स क्ष्य प ये ज ने के उपर ांत आर प पत्र सां0-
271/24 कवां0-05.10.2024 एवां अप्र थ अकियुक र केश रां जन उर्ध रॉकी पे०-
सुरेश चौधरी स ०-गजेन्द्र कबध ि कील पुर थ न – कहलस कजल -न लांि
कबह र क कजन्हें इस क ांड में कि०-03.01.2025 क ररम ण्ड ककय गय है
तथ 02. म ० ररजव न उम्र 35 वषध पे०-म ० हबीब स ०-थकतय थ न -कुढ़नी
कजल -मुजफ्फरपुर कबह र ने कि0-22.03.2025 क म ननीय सां0-271/24
किां 0-05.10.2024 एवां अप्र थ० अकियुक्त र केश रां जन उर्ध रॉकी पे०-सुरेश
चौधरी स ०-गजेन्द्र कबघ ि कील पुर थ न कहतक कजल -न लांि कबह र क
कजन्हें इस क ांड में किां 0-03.01.2025 क ररम ण्ड ककय गय है तथ 02. म 0
ररजव न उम्र-35 वषध पे०-मकत-हबीब स ०-थकतय थ न -कुढ़नी कजल –
मुजफ्फरपुर कबह र ने किां 0-22.03.2025 क म ननीय न्य य लय मे
आत्मसमपधण ककये हैं के कवरुर्द् आर प पत्र सांख्य 75/25 किन क
31.03.2025 समकपधत ककय गय है। है। क ांड अनुसन्ध न के क्रम में अप्र थ०
अकियुक्त सांजीव कुम र उर्ध लुट्टन मुक्तखय पे०-जनकककश र प्रस ि स ०-
बलव थ न -नगरनौस कजल -न लांि कबह र क इस क ांड में कि0-
05.06.2025 क आकथधक अपर ध ईक ई थ न क ांड सां0 06/24 किन ांक
16.03.2024 से ररम ण्ड ककय गय है। ———————————-
—————————————————
अतः इस क ांड मे पय धप्त स क्ष्य के आध र पर वरीय पि कधक री के आिे श
की प्रत्य श में क ांड मे ररम ण्ड ककए गए क ांड के अप्र ० अकियुक्त सांजीव
कुम र उर्ध लुट्टन मुक्तखय पे०-जनकककश र प्रस ि स ०-बलव थ न –
नगरनौस कजल -न लांि कबह र के कवरुर्द् ध र -467/468/420/120बी
ि ०ि०कव० एवां 66 आई०टी० एक्ट तथ 12 Jharkhand Competitive
Examination (Prevention and Redressal of Unfair Means in
Recruitment) Act.2023 के अांतगधत आर प पत्र सांख्य 247/25
– 23 –
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
किन क 30.08.2025 समकपधत ककय ज त है तथ अ०प्र थ० अकि० 01
अकवन श कुम र उम्न-29 वषध पे०-चांिेश्वर प्रस ि स ०-ज गीकबगह थ न चांडी
कजल -न लांि कबह र 02 आशुत ष र य पे०-मुक्तीन र यण र य स ०-
र मकृषण नगर ध न कॉल नी पटन 03. सकबत कुम री मुांड पे०-स्व
कनलपत कसांह मुांड 04. एन्थ नी मुांड पे०-बगरु मुांड ि न स ०-म ांझीट ली
थ न -बुण्डु कजल -र ाँची 05. शैलेन्द्र कुम र पेठ-जगन्न थ महत स ०-नौडीह
थ न -कहलस कजल -न लांि कबह र 06. डॉ जयककश र मांगल उम्र-39 वषध
पे०-चरण ह ांसि स ०-सनई कुट्टी थ न -ट कल कजल – प० कसांहिूम 07. रकव
ककश र पे०-कनरां जन प्रस ि स ०-व डध नां0-15 नई मुहल्ल थ न -शहर कजल –
पल मु एवां अन्य न कमत व सांकिग्ध तथ अज्ञ त के कवरूर्द् कगरफ्त री व
कवकधसम्मत क रध व ई, एर्०एस०एल० ररप टध की प्र क्तप्त व कवश्लेषण, अप्र थ०
अकि० एवां सांकिग्ध व्यक्तक्त व ां के द्व र परस्पर सांपन्न कवतीय लेन-िे न, परीक्षा
संचालन ऐजेन्सी सतवत् इन्फोसोल प्रा०लल० एवं लोगेन लोलगस्टक के
द्वारा सीक्रेट एवं नन सीक्रेट मटे ररयल का परीवहन करने वाली
ट् ांसपोलटिं ग एजेन्सी की संललप्तता हेतु पूरक अनुसंधान जारी है।व किनी
क इसकी सुचन िी ज रही है।”
49. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that supplementary
investigation against the present review petitioners is still going
on, hence, this Court, is of the view that since the investigation
is still going on and as such, there is no question of reviewing
the order passed by this Court as per the ground taken by the
petitioners in the light of liberty given by the Hon’ble Apex
Court.
50. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussions, is of the
view that since the investigation is still going on, therefore, it is
not a case where the order sought to be reviewed on the ground
that the petitioners have not been charge-sheeted.
51. Accordingly, the present review petition fails and is
dismissed.
– 24 –
2026:JHHC:9848-DB
52. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I agree.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
06/04/2026
A.F.R.
Rohit/
Uploaded on 07.04.2026
– 25 –
[ad_1]
Source link
