[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

The State Of Jharkhand vs Pankaj Kumar on 18 December, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                        Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37983-DB




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            Civil Review No. 15 of 2021
                            ---------------
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department,
   Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.:
   Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
3. The       Engineer-in-Chief,     Road     Construction Department,
   Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-
   Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
4. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department,
   Government of Jharkhand, Office near Ranchi Municipal
   Corporation, Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District:
   Ranchi
         ...    ...      Review Petitioners/Appellants/Respondents
                                    Versus
1. Pankaj Kumar, son of Parasnath Singh, resident of Village: Mani
   Sirisian, P.O.: Husepur, P.S: Amnaur, District: Chapra, State: Bihar
                                        ...     ... Respondent/Petitioner
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building,
   Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, District: Ranchi.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department,
   Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S: Hazaribagh, District: Hazaribagh.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S: Sahibganj,
   District: Sahibganj.
5. The State of Bihar
6. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of
   Bihar, Patna, P.O. & P.S: Patna, District: Patna.
7. The       Engineer-in-Chief,     Road     Construction Department,
   Government of Bihar, Patna, P.O. & P.S: Patna, District: Patna.
              ...     ...     Respondents/Performa Respondents
8. The Superintending Engineer, (Mechanical Wing), Road
   Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project
   Building, P.O. & P.S: Dhurwa, District: Ranchi.
9. The Executive Engineer, (Mechanical Wing), Road Construction
   Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. &
   P.S: Dhurwa, District: Ranchi.
       These two posts have been abolished and are merged with
       Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department,
       Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
                                    ...    ...    Performa Respondents
                          ---------


                                                                    Page 1 of 18
                                     Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37983-DB




CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
                        ---------
For the Petitioners  : Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II
                       Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G.-II
For Resp. No.1       : Mr. Ananda Kumar Sinha, Advocate
                       Mr. Manoj Kumar Ram, Advocate
For Resp. Nos.5 to 7 : Mr. S.P. Roy, G.A., Bihar
                        ---------
05/Dated: 18.12.2025

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The defects pointed out by the Registry are ordered to be

ignored.

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. Ananda Kumar Sinha, learned counsel, accepts notice

for respondent No.1 and Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel, accepts

notice for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and waive service.

4. For the reasons set out in the application, we find sufficient

cause to condone the delay of 394 days that has crept up in filing

of the Civil Review petition.

5. Ordered accordingly.

6. I.A. No. 6562 of 2021 stands disposed of.

Prayer

7. The instant review petition is under Section 114 and Order 47

Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking review of the order

dated 28.11.2019 passed in L.P.A. No.11 of 2019.

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37983-DB

Factual Matrix

8. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ

petition, required to be enumerated reads as hereunder:-

(i) The writ petitioner has joined his services in the year 1996 on

Daily rated basis on Class-IV category. Similarly situated persons

approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No.2338 of 1998 (R) which was

disposed of vide order dated 27.11.1999, with a direction to the

Respondent-State of Bihar to take necessary steps for filling up the

vacant post in Road Construction Department.

(ii) The said order was modified vide order dated 16.12.1999,

whereby benefit of age relaxation was granted as also a direction was

issued to consider the length of past services of such persons at the

time of consideration of appointment.

(iii) The State-respondent, in terms of the order passed by this

Court in C.W.J.C. No.2338 of 1998 (R) has come out with an

advertisement. The writ petitioner had applied for appointment on

Class-IV post but not appointed and hence, filed representation

before the respondents but the representation having not been

decided, the writ petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ

petition being W.P.(S) No.1951 of 2016.

(iv) In terms of the process of selection initiated, the name of the

writ petitioner finds place at serial no.98 vide Annexure-6 to the writ

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37983-DB

application, whereas one Rubi Kumari who is at serial no.101 of the

said panel, has approached this Court by filing the writ petition being

W.P.(S) No.7386 of 2012, which was disposed of vide order dated

18.09.2013 and in pursuant to the direction, the respondents have

granted appointment to the said Rubi Kumari.

(v) Learned Single Judge has passed an order directing the

respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner on Class-IV post.

The said order is under challenge in the Letters Patent Appeal being

L.P.A. No.11 of 2019 preferred by the State of Jharkhand, inter-alia

on the ground that the panel list which was prepared in the year 2006

has expired and exhausted after one year as per Circular No.16441

dated 03.12.1980 and Circular No.3577 dated 25.04.1997, issued by

the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, erstwhile the

State of Bihar which clearly stipulates the validity period of panel

which will be operative for a period of one year and since the period of

one year has lapsed from the year 2006, no appointment can be

given to the writ petitioner.

(vi) But, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court, after taking into

consideration the factual aspects, has dismissed the aforesaid Letters

Patent Appeal, vide order dated 28.11.2019.

(vii) Being aggrieved with the order dated 28.11.2019 passed in

L.P.A. No.11 of 2019, the State of Jharkhand has preferred S.L.P.

being S.L.P. (Civil) No.7941 of 2020. The Hon'ble Apex Court has

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37983-DB

disposed of the S.L.P. (Civil) No.7941 of 2020 vide order dated

18.08.2020 granting liberty to the review petitioners herein to move

before the High Court by way of review. Hence, the present review

petition has been filed.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the review petitioners

9. Learned counsel for the review petitioners/State has taken

the following grounds in assailing the order impugned: -

(i) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the

review petitioners that while passing the impugned judgment

dated 28.11.2019, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has not

taken into consideration the fact in right perspective.

(ii) It has been submitted that the learned Single Judge has

failed to take note of the fact that other persons who are below in

the panel has been appointed ignoring the case of the writ

petitioner, is factually incorrect.

(iii) It has also been submitted that the learned Single

Judge has failed to take note of the fact that the order passed in

C.W.J.C. No.2338 of 1998, there was no specific direction to

appoint all the petitioners only barring others, rather, there was

direction to fill up all the vacant post giving certain relaxation on

their age.

10. Learned counsel for the review petitioners, based upon the

aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the order impugned

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37983-DB

passed by this Court in L.P.A. No.11 of 2019 vide order dated

28.11.2019, therefore, suffers from an error and as such, it is a fit

case for exercising the power of review.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents

11. Learned counsel for the respondents have taken the

following grounds in defending the order impugned: -

(i) It has been contended that the grounds which are being

raised, have already been taken into consideration by this Court

and the review petitioners by re-agitating the same, are trying to

make the said ground to be a ground for review, which is not

permissible.

(ii) More so, the review petitioners have travelled to the

Hon'ble Apex Court by challenging the order dated 28.11.2019

passed by this Court in L.P.A. No.11 of 2019 but the said S.L.P

being S.L.P. (Civil) No.7941 of 2020 was disposed of, granting

liberty to the State, the review petitioners herein to move before

this Court by way of review.

(iii) It has been contended that merely because the liberty

has been granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it does not mean

that any ground is allowed to be agitated by the review

petitioners making the same to be a ground for review, rather,

the ground is only to be entertained, if acceptable, within the

scope to exercise the power of review. All the grounds have

already been taken into consideration by this Court and as such,

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37983-DB

the said ground cannot be said to be a new one for the purpose

of coming to the conclusion that error apparent on the face of

record or the fact could not be produced in spite of all due

diligence.

Analysis

12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

gone through the rival submissions made on behalf of the

parties, pleadings and the order sought to be reviewed.

13. Before proceeding, it needs to refer herein that the

order/judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court

vide order dated 08.10.2018 in W.P.(S) No.1951 of 2016 has

been challenged by the State by filing Letters Patent Appeal

being L.P.A. No.11 of 2019. The said Letters Patent Appeal has

been dismissed, vide order dated 28.11.2019 which has been

assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing SLP being

S.L.P. (Civil) No.7941 of 2020 but the aforesaid S.L.P. was

disposed of vide order dated 18.08.2020, however, granting

liberty to the State, the review petitioners herein to move before

this Court by way of review.

14. This Court, before coming to the power/scope to exercise

the scope of review seeking review of the said order, needs to

refer the underlying principle on which the power of review, is to

be exercised.

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37983-DB

15. 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."

16. 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

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37983-DB

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."

17. 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:

"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.,.

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37983-DB

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."

18. 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.

19. 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

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37983-DB

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).

20. 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.

21. 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:

"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."

22. Similarly, in S. Murali Sundaram Versus Jothibai

Kannan and Others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185 the Hon'ble

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37983-DB

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.

(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."

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37983-DB

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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

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.

26. 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

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37983-DB

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.--"

27. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussions it is evident

that 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

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37983-DB

seeking review despite due exercise of diligence when the order

was made.

28. 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.

29. 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 spite of

due diligence.

30. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case by

taking into consideration the ground, as has been agitated on

behalf of the review petitioners, we are now proceeding to

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37983-DB

examine as to whether, the same can be said to be a ground to

exercise the power of review.

31. The foremost ground as has been taken by the learned

counsel for the review petitioners is that the other persons who

are below in the panel, have been appointed ignoring the case of

the writ petitioner, is factually incorrect.

32. In order to appreciate the aforesaid ground taken by the

review petitioners, this Court has gone through the judgment

dated 28.11.2019 which is the subject matter of the present

review petition, wherefrom, it is evident that aforesaid ground has

already been taken into consideration by this Court while

deciding the Letters Patent Appeal and hence, it is not available

for the review petitioners to re-agitate the aforesaid issue by

making the same as a ground, for ready reference, the relevant

paragraphs of the aforesaid appeal, are being quoted as under:-

"25. The matter would have been different if the name of the petitioner would have below on or after serial no.104 but when the 103 posts have been identified, it will be treated to be a list prepared for filling 103 identified posts and when the name of the writ petitioner is at serial no.98, he has every right to be appointed more particularly on the ground that one candidate at serial no.101, has been appointed.

26. The principle of losing force of the panel is to govern for such candidates who are claiming name in the panel beyond the serial no.103, because if the posts have been identified or notified, it has to be filled up and the panel if prepared for the exigency i.e. if exists due to non-joining of the candidate or sudden demise of candidate or any other reason in a year but within the notified or

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:37983-DB

identified posts, the candidature of such candidates can be considered for appointment within the period of one year.

Herein, since 103 posts have been identified, it casts duty upon the State to fill up 103 posts in terms of the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.2338 of 1998(R) and as such, it is not a case where the stand of the respondents about expiry of panel, is to be considered.

27. We, on the basis of the elaborate discussions made hereinabove and taking into consideration the factual aspect as has been considered by the learned Single Judge, are of the view that when the learned Single Judge has passed order taking into consideration the fact about appointment of Rubi Kumari who is at serial no.101 while the writ petitioner is at serial no.98 which was not controverted by the State-respondent before the writ Court, has passed the order by allowing the writ petition, which according to our considered view cannot be faulted with."

33. From the aforesaid order, it is evident that the Coordinate

Bench of this Court, has negated the claim of the appellant-State

(review petitioners herein) on the basis of the discussions and

particularly taking into consideration the fact that the writ petitioner

is at serial no.98, was not controverted by the State before the writ

Court.

34. This Court, on consideration of the grounds for review, as

has been agitated by the learned counsel for the review

petitioners, is of the view that all the grounds as raised herein,

have been considered by this Court exhaustively and no new

thing has been brought said to attract the principle of error

apparent on the face of record or anything that could have been