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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.”
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:
“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.”
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:
“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.
(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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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:-
12 Jharkhand Competitive Examination (Prevention and Redressal of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act.2023
“IMAGE”
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.
52. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
 |
This Product is Licensed to , |