The Bihar Staff Selection Commission vs Santosh Kumar Tiwari
2025 Latest Caselaw 4126 Patna

Patna High Court

The Bihar Staff Selection Commission vs Santosh Kumar Tiwari on 14 October, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Sinha

Bench: Anil Kumar Sinha

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             CIVIL REVIEW No.4 of 2022
                                          In
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22468 of 2019
     ======================================================
1.    The Bihar Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman, Veterinary
      College, Patna, Bihar.
2.   The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College,
     Patna, Bihar.
3.   The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College, Patna,
     Bihar.
                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus
1.   Santosh Kumar Tiwari Son of Shri Ram Pratap Tiwari, resident of Village -
     Socharitola, Dariyapur, P.S. Parwalpur, District- Nalanda, Pin - 803114,
     Bihar.
2.   Jitendra Kumar, Son of Shri Surendra Singh, resident of Village - Kichni,
     P.O. and P.S.- Harnaut, District - Nalanda, Pin - 803110, Bihar.
3.   Ashwani Kumar Thakur, Son of Shri Ganesh Thakur, resident of Village -
     Raghuwarpur, P.O. Chakhabib, P.S.- Dalsinghsarai, District - Samastipur,
     Pin - 848114, Bihar - 4.
4.   Santosh Kumar, Son of Shri - Krishna Kant Pandey, resident of Village -
     Ratanpura, P.O. Dariyapur, P.S. - Islampur, Block Islampur, District -
     Nalanda, Bihar.
5.   Binay Kumar, Son of Shri Upendra Prasad, resident of Village - Gopalpur,
     P.O. Maghra, P.S. - Deep Nagar, District - Nalanda, Bihar.
6.   Sunil Kumar Son of Shri Sikanbdar Yadav, resident of Village - Bishanpur,
     Ward No. 10, P.O. Kharagpur, P.S.- Sonbarsa Kachhahri, District - Saharsan,
     Pin - 852106, Bihar.
7.   The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
8.   The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s     :    Mr.Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Adv.
                                   Mr. Abhishek Anand
                                   Ms. Kanupriya
     For the Opposite Party/s :    Ms. Divya Verma, AC to AAG 3
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA

     JUDGMENT AND ORDER
            C.A.V.

      Date : 14-10-2025
 Patna High Court C. REV. No.4 of 2022 dt.14-10-2025
                                            2/16




                         The present review application has been filed by the

       Bihar Staff Selection Commission (herein after referred to as 'the

       Commission') seeking review of the order, dated 01.09.2021,

       passed in CWJC No. 22468 of 2019, by which this Court directed

       the Commission to permit the writ petitioners to appear in the

       interview on the basis of submission made by both the parties.

                     2. This Court, after recording the submission of learned

       Counsel for the writ petitioners and the Commission, in CWJC No.

       22468 of 2019, disposed the writ petition by order, dated

       01.09.2021

, recorded that the names of the writ petitioners were

included in the list of successful candidates and the Commission

would certainly allow them to appear in the interview.

Accordingly, this Court directed the Commission to allow the writ

petitioners to appear in the interview, as and when the date of the

interview is decided by the Commission.

3. The short facts involved in the writ petition is that the

Commission published an advertisement, inviting applications for

filling up 466 vacant posts of drivers in various offices and

departments of the Government of Bihar. As per the terms of the

advertisement, the process of selection was to be completed in the

following manner :-

Patna High Court C. REV. No.4 of 2022 dt.14-10-2025

(i) The candidates were required to appear in a written

test of 75 marks;

(ii) Marks were to be awarded for work experience as

driver in any Government office on contractual appointment, duly

certified by the competent authority. For every completed year of

such experience, five marks were to be awarded, subject to a

maximum of 25 marks;

(iii) On the basis of marks obtained in the written test

and the marks awarded for experience, a combined merit list of

100 marks were to be prepared;

(iv) From this list, the candidates equal to 2.5 times of

the vacancies in each category were to be shortlisted for the next

stage;

(v) Shortlisted candidates were to be called for a

proficiency test relating to driving test (50 marks) and General

knowledge of Vehicles (50 marks). The proficiency test carry total

100 marks.

(vi) On the basis of marks obtained in the proficiency

test, a final merit list was to be prepared and based on that merit

list, the Commission would send recommendation to the

concerned department and offices.

Patna High Court C. REV. No.4 of 2022 dt.14-10-2025

4. In light of the aforesaid basic facts, learned Counsel

for the review petitioner argued that a written test of 75 marks was

conducted for all candidates seeking appointment to the post of

driver. After the written test, shortlisting of candidates was done,

who attained the minimum qualifying marks in the written test in

terms of Memo No. 2374, dated 16.06.2007. Thereafter, 654

candidates, including the petitioners, who qualified in the written

test and claimed to be working experience in government

departments and offices were asked to submit their experience

certificates in the prescribed format, so that they could be awarded

marks on the basis of their experience. In the next stage, the marks

obtained in the written test (maximum 75) and experience

(maximum 25) were added and it is on this basis that 1745

candidates, including the present petitioners, were found qualified

up to this stage, having secured minimum qualifying marks. The

list of 1745 candidates has been annexed as Annexure 8 to the

supplementary affidavit of the writ petition.

5. Thereafter, from the pool of 1745 candidates, 1075

candidates, which is equivalent to 2.5 times the vacancies,

category-wise, were shortlisted for the proficiency test in driving

and general knowledge of vehicles, carrying 100 marks. The

petitioners, however, did not qualify at this stage as they failed to Patna High Court C. REV. No.4 of 2022 dt.14-10-2025

secure the cutoff marks in their respective categories and did not

come within the 1075 candidates.

6. The category-wise cut-off marks for shortlisting were

as follows:

(i) General : 55 marks;

(ii) Backward Class : 49.50 marks;

(iii) Most Backward Class: 35 marks;

(iv) Scheduled Caste: 32 marks; and

(v) Scheduled Tribe: 32.5 marks.

7. The petitioner nos. 1, 4 and 5, having Roll Nos.

147138, 131452 and 131390, respectively, all belonging to

General Category, had secured 50, 45.75, and 47 marks

respectively; whereas, the cut-off marks for General Category was

55 marks. Likewise, the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 6, having Roll

Nos. 142262, 143741 and 134344, respectively, who belong to the

Backward Class category, had secured 43.5, 44, and 42.75 marks

respectively; whereas the cut-off marks prescribed for the

Backward Class category was 49.5 mark.

8. Accordingly, the submission is that judgment under

review, dated 01.09.2021, was passed on the basis of an erroneous

and incorrect submission that the writ petitioners have been

declared as successful candidates in the written examination, as Patna High Court C. REV. No.4 of 2022 dt.14-10-2025

such, they were entitled to appear in the interview. This

submission placed before this Court was factually incorrect.

9. The correct fact is that the writ petitioners had merely

obtained the pass marks in accordance with Memo No. 2345, dated

16.07.2007, issued by the State Government in the final score of

100 marks, i.e., 75 marks for the written examination and up to 25

marks for experience. The writ petitioners were among 1745

candidates who had qualified at this stage.

10. From 1745 candidates, only 1075 candidates,

equivalent to 2.5 times the total number of vacancies in each

category, were to be selected for the next stage of selection, i.e.,

the proficiency test of driving and general knowledge of vehicles.

The writ petitioners, on merit, qualified only up to the stage of

being among the 1745 candidates and could not be selected in the

list of 1075 candidates shortlisted for the next stage.

11. Learned Counsel for the review petitioner submits

that the entire selection process has since been completed and the

same has been conducted in a fair manner and the impugned order

came to be passed on account of an inadvertent misrepresentation

made before this Court. No vested right or interest has accrued in

favour of the original writ petitioners pursuant to the said order.

The present case constitutes a fit ground for exercise of this Patna High Court C. REV. No.4 of 2022 dt.14-10-2025

Court's review jurisdiction inasmuch as there exist an error

apparent on the face of the record.

12. In support of this submission, reliance has been

placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case

of Sunil Vasudeva v. Sundar Gupta, reported in (2019) 17 SCC

385, Central Bank of India v. SC/ST Employees Welfare Assn.,

reported in (2016) 13 SCC 135, as well as the Full Bench decision

of this Court, in the case of High Court of Judicature at Patna v.

K.K. Chaubey, reported in 2015 (4) PLJR 328.

13. Learned Counsel for the review petitioner has also

apprised this Court that the writ petitioners of CWJC No. 22468 of

2019 had preferred a contempt petition before this Court, bearing

MJC No. 1379 of 2022, which, however, was subsequently

permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 13.03.2024.

14. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the review

petitioner and learned Counsel for the State and have gone through

the materials available on record.

15. Despite valid service of notice, no one appears on

behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 6.

16. The Short question involved in this review petition is

whether the order, dated 01.09.2021, allowing the writ petitioners

to appear in an interview, can be reviewed/modified or not. Patna High Court C. REV. No.4 of 2022 dt.14-10-2025

17. From perusal of the order under review, it appears

that the said order was passed primarily on the basis of the

submissions advanced by learned Counsel appearing for the writ

petitioners as well as learned Counsel appearing for the

Commission.

18. It was submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that

in view of the statement made in paragraph 10 of the

supplementary affidavit filed in the writ petition, the names of the

petitioners appeared in the merit list of 654 successful candidates

and that they were, therefore, called for interview.

19. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the

Commission also submitted, referring to Annexure 8 to the

supplementary affidavit, that the names of the writ petitioners were

included in the list of successful candidates and that the

Commission would certainly allow them to appear in the

interview. It was in view of these concurrent submissions that the

order, dated 01.09.2021, came to be passed.

20. The case of the review petitioner-Commission is that

the order under review came to be passed on account of an

erroneous and incorrect submission, which has resulted in an error

apparent on the face of the record. In the counter affidavit filed by

the Commission and the supplementary affidavit filed by the writ Patna High Court C. REV. No.4 of 2022 dt.14-10-2025

petitioners, all necessary facts, which have been brought in the

review petition, were on record.

21. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to refer to

some of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

22. In the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati,

reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Supreme Court has held that the

jurisdiction and scope of review is not that of an appeal and it can

be entertained only if there is an error apparent on the face of the

record. A mere repetition through different counsel, of old and

overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered

grounds or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously

insufficient. It further held that 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, justifying the Court

to exercise its power of review.

23. In a recent decision, the Supreme Court, in the case

of Malleeswari v. K. Suguna, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC

1927, held, in paragraphs 17 and 18, as follows: -

"17. Having noticed the distinction between the power of review and appellate power, we restate the power and scope of review jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up as follows:

17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it Patna High Court C. REV. No.4 of 2022 dt.14-10-2025

is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed.

17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record.8 Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision.9 An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.

17.3 Lastly, the phrase 'for any other sufficient reason' means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories.

18. Courts ought not mix up or overlap one jurisdiction with another jurisdiction. Having noted the appellate and review jurisdiction of the Court, we will apply these principles to the impugned order to determine whether the High Court was within its power of review jurisdiction or had exceeded it by reversing the findings, as if the High Court were sitting in appeal against the order dated 23.09.2022.

We appreciate the above tabulated summary of the view taken in the impugned order while doing so."

24. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the

correct factual position, as pointed out, is that pursuant to the Patna High Court C. REV. No.4 of 2022 dt.14-10-2025

advertisement for filling up 466 posts of drivers in various

departments and offices of the State, the process of selection

comprised firstly of a written examination, having 75 marks. In

addition, candidates working on contractual basis as drivers in the

departments and offices of the State were entitled to 5 marks per

completed year of experience, subject to a maximum of 25 marks,

on production of the requisite certificate. On this basis, a combined

score, out of 100, was to be prepared. The candidates, equal to 2.5

times of the vacancies in each category were thereafter to be called

for the next stage of selection, i.e., proficiency test comprising of

driving test having 50 marks and general knowledge of vehicles of

50 marks.

25. In accordance with this scheme, 654 candidates,

including writ petitioners who had obtained minimum qualifying

marks in the written examination and claimed to be having worked

as drivers on contractual basis, were required to submit their

experience certificates so that marks for experience could be

awarded to them. This fact would be evident from Memo No.

1856, dated 26.07.2019 (Annexure 3). This list of 654 candidates

was not the final merit list of successful candidates, but merely a

list of the candidates, who were required to submit their

experience certificates.

Patna High Court C. REV. No.4 of 2022 dt.14-10-2025

26. Furthermore, after evaluation of experience

certificates, marks obtained in written test and marks for the

experience were added and altogether 1745 candidates were found

to have secured the minimum qualifying marks and out of 1745

candidates, only 1075 candidates, equivalent to 2.5 times the

advertised vacancies, were shortlisted category-wise for the

proficiency test.

27. Upon careful perusal of the list of 1745 candidates,

this Court finds that the said list consists of 1745 candidates, who

had merely secured the minimum qualifying marks. It cannot be

construed as the final merit list of successful candidates eligible

for the proficiency test and the writ petitioners did not qualify for

this stage, as they failed to secure the required cut-off marks for

appearing in the proficiency test

28. It is, therefore, evident that the reliance placed by

this Court in the order under review upon the list of 1745

candidates, treating it as the list of successful candidates, was an

error on the face of the record since this list merely reflect the

number of candidates who had secured minimum qualifying marks

and not those who had been declared successful for the next round.

29. Learned Counsel for the review petitioner has rightly

submitted that the order under review was the result of incorrect Patna High Court C. REV. No.4 of 2022 dt.14-10-2025

submission, which amounts to an error apparent on the face of the

record. It is also pointed out that the entire selection process has

since been concluded in a fair manner and no vested right or

interest has accrued in favour of the writ petitioners by virtue of

the order under review.

30. Learned Counsel for the review petitioner has also

placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, in

the case of K. K. Choubey (supra), and the Full Bench has

summarized the principle of review in paragraph 30 of the

decision, which is quoted herein below:-

"30. The law, on the subject of review, may, in the light of the discussions held, as a whole, be summarized thus:--

(i) Ordinarily, a court or a tribunal cannot review its order or decision if the statute does not confer on the court or the tribunal, as the case may be, the power to review its own order. This apart, whatever limitations are imposed by a statute, while conferring the power of review on a court or a tribunal, the court or the tribunal, as the case may be, must adhere to the limitations, which the relevant statute may impose on the exercise of such power.

Section 114 CPC, which embodies the substantive power of review of a civil court, does not impose any limitations on the court's power to review its order or decision; yet the power of review even by a Patna High Court C. REV. No.4 of 2022 dt.14-10-2025

civil court cannot be unguided and uncanalised, for, Order 47, Rule 1 circumscribes the court's power of review.

(ii) Though, at one point of time, it was considered to be a rule of universal application that review by a court of its order is not possible except on three prescribed 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 or order was passed, and (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or (iii) any such sufficient ground, which is analogous to the two grounds aforementioned, the subsequent development of law, on the subject of review, has shown that the grounds referred to, namely, that any sufficient ground must be analogous to the two sufficient grounds aforementioned is no longer a rule of universal application.

(iii) One of the cases, which has helped in the expansion of the court's power to review its order is the case of Lily Thomas (supra) inasmuch as Lily Thomas (supra) ruled that ordinarily, the power of review, being a creature of statute, cannot be exercised as an inherent power, yet such technicalities of law may have to be bent, in an appropriate cases, for the purpose of correcting an order (sic-- error?) committed by the court if such an error arises out of a presumption of fact, which Patna High Court C. REV. No.4 of 2022 dt.14-10-2025

was non-existent, and when the court finds that its refusal to review its own error would cause, or has caused, grave miscarriage of justice.

(iv) It is essentially the principle behind the doctrine of "actus curiae neminem gravabit", which has made the court hold, in Municipal Board, Pratabgarh (supra), that when a court corrects and rectifies an error, it restores the rule of law and not defeat it. Even Rajesh D. Darbar v. Narasingrao Krishnaji Kulkarni, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 219, recognizes that in an exceptional case, a court may have to review its order by invoking the doctrine of "actus curiae neminem gravabit".

(Emphasis is added)

31. It is in this backdrop of the above facts and the law,

this Court finds merit in the contention of learned Senior Counsel

for the review petitioner that the order, dated 01.09.2021, passed in

CWJC No. 22468 of 2019, cannot be allowed to stand in its

original form.

32. Accordingly, the review application is allowed and

the order, dated 01.09.2021, passed in CWJC No. 22468 of 2019,

is modified to the extent that the writ petitioners of CWJC No.

22468 of 2019 shall not be entitled to appear in the interview as

they did not secure the cut-off marks prescribed in their respective Patna High Court C. REV. No.4 of 2022 dt.14-10-2025

categories and were not eligible to be included in the list of

candidates shortlisted for the proficiency test.

33. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/-

AFR/NAFR                         AFR
CAV DATE                      22-08-2025
Uploading Date                14-10-2025
Transmission Date                N/A