[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

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

2026:JHHC:9848-DB

Expression 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

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

2026:JHHC:9848-DB

after 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

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

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

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

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."

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 के

अांतगधत 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