JUDGMENT : 1. The instant civil review has been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C. for review of the order/judgment dated 17.10.2023 passed in L.P.A. No. 297 of 2018 and analogous cases. 2. The ground for review is that the cases pertaining to consideration of their case by not allotting the marks with respect to four questions which are out of syllabus and in consequence thereof, they have been disqualified in the matter of recruitment for promotion through limited competitive examination to the post of Sub- Inspector. 3. This Court, before proceeding to examine the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, deems it fit and proper to refer the factual background, as under, by making it in two parts, first part pertains to the pleading/case of the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 and second part pertains to the pleading/case of the review petitioner nos. 5 to 15. Factual aspects of the case of the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4: 4. The review petitioners No.1 to 4 had preferred the letters patent appeal being LPA No.297 of 2018, LPA No.474 of 2018, LPA No.476 of 2018 and LPA No.580 of 2018 against the orders of the writ court by which the writ petitions have been dismissed refusing to grant any relief in favour of the petitioners seeking a direction upon the respondents to struck down the questions which were out of syllabus and asked without correct option for the examination held for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police pursuant to advertisement No.09/2017 in the name of Jharkhand Police Sub Inspector Limited Competitive Examination, 2017. 5. The review petitioners/appellants who were in service posted as Constable in different districts of the State of Jharkhand have made applications for consideration of their candidature for being appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in pursuance of the advertisement being Advertisement No.09/2017 issued by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, hereinafter referred to as JSSC, for selection and appointment of the candidates through the limited competitive examination. 6. As per the case of the petitioners/appellants the total number of vacancies was shown to be 1544 out of which 772 vacancies were for unreserved category but while publishing the result, only 663 candidates have been shown to be qualified in the written test. 6. As per the case of the petitioners/appellants the total number of vacancies was shown to be 1544 out of which 772 vacancies were for unreserved category but while publishing the result, only 663 candidates have been shown to be qualified in the written test. The case of the petitioners/appellants are that they are having required eligibility criteria, as such, they made applications for consideration of their candidature by participating in the process of selection. The petitioners/appellants, having been declared to be unsuccessful candidates in the written test, sought for information from the concerned authority/examining body. 7. According to the petitioners/appellants, the main reason for being unsuccessful in the written test is that the answers of some of the questions have wrongly been printed, therefore, they ought to have been allotted marks of such questions. It is the grievance of the petitioners/appellants that they have made due objection regarding the wrong printed options, however, to no effect, therefore, the writ petitions have been filed on the ground that the answers of some of the questions have wrongly been printed, which according to the petitioners/appellants, are correct but the same has been found to be incorrect by the evaluator and in that view of the matter, the opinion has to be sought for from the expert in order to reach to the rightful conclusion about the correctness of the answers of such questions but no endeavour has been taken by the examining body. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid ground the review petitioners/appellant has preferred the writ petitions but the same were dismissed and accordingly review petitioners 1 to 4/appellants had preferred appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent being LPA No.297 of 2018, LPA No.474 of 2018, LPA No.476 of 2018 and LPA No.580 of2018. 9. The Division Bench Vide order dated 24.03.2021 had dismissed the aforesaid appeals by not interfering with the orders of writ Court. 10. Thereafter review petitioners /appellants had assailed the order dated 24.03.2021 before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petitions which were converted into Civil Appeal being Civil Appeal Nos. 2793-2798 of 2023. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court has allowed the appeals in part. The common judgment and order passed by this Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeals has been quashed and set aside. 2793-2798 of 2023. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court has allowed the appeals in part. The common judgment and order passed by this Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeals has been quashed and set aside. Matters have been remitted back to the Division Bench of this High Court for fresh decision of Letters Patent Appeals in accordance with law and on its own merits and in the light of the observations made in the order of Hon'ble Apex Court. 12. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, therein that it will be open for the Division Bench of the High Court to call for the expert’s opinion with respect to the questions of which the answers were alleged to be incorrect for which the objections were raised.However, the same is left to the High Court. 13. Accordingly vide order dated 18.07.2023 the Division Bench of this Court had directed the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission to constitute the Expert Committee and refer the entire details of nine questions, as per the reference made at paragraph-4 and 5 of the affidavits along with the materials in aid of the Committee to furnish its opinion. 14. Thereafter the Division Bench vide order dated 17.10.2023 while taking into consideration the opinion of expert committee had dismissed the said appeals so far, the review petitioners no. 1 to 4 namely, Dharmendra Kumar in L.P.A. No.297 of 2018, Bijayendra Kumar Sah, appellant in L.P.A. No.474 of 2018, Manjay Kumar, appellant in L.P.A. No.580 of 2018 and Thaneshwar Ravidas in L.P.A. No. 476 of 2018 were concerned, relevant paragraph of the aforesaid paragraph is being quoted as under: “24. This Court, based upon the opinion of the Expert Committee which is the basis of tabulation of marks of the appellants from which it is evident that out of 07 candidates, 03 candidates, namely, Sachit Kumar Singh (appellant in L.P.A. No.297 of 2018, Narendra Singh, appellant in L.P.A. No.473 of 2018 and Raj Kishor Tiwari, appellant in L.P.A. No. 475 of 2018 have been declared to be qualified on the basis of enhancement of the marks based upon the opinion of the Expert Committee. 25. 25. Appellant Dharmendra Kumar in L.P.A. No.297 of 2018, Bijayendra Kumar Sah, appellant in L.P.A. No.474 of 2018, and Manjay Kumar, appellant in L.P.A. No.580 of 2018 have been declared to be not qualified because combined marks of Paper-2 and Paper-3 is less than 50%. 26. However, appellant Thaneshwar Ravidas in L.P.A. No.476 of 2018 has been declared to be not qualified because combined marks of Paper-2 and Paper-3 is less than 45% and marks in paper-2 is less than 40%.----” 15. Hence the instant review petition has been preferred against the order dated 17.10.2023 by the review petitioners no.1 to 4/appellant. Factual aspects of the case of the review petitioner nos. 5 to 15: 16. The review petitioner nos. 5 to 15 has preferred the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 2923 of 2018 before the learned Single Judge challenging the questions asked in the Jharkhand Police Sub- Inspector Limited Competitive Examination, 2017, alleging therein that some of the questions asked in the examination were out of syllabus. However, vide order dated 7 th August. 2018 the aforesaid writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2923 of 2018 has been dismissed as withdrawn. 17. The said order of withdrawal has been sought for review by filing civil misc. petition being C.M.P. No. 443 of 2018 but the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2018 by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the learned counsel for the writ- petitioner was fully aware of the submissions made in the open Court and as such the order passed with the consent of both sides cannot be recalled/ reviewed/ modified. 18. Consequently, the order passed in C.M.P. No. 443 of 2018 has been challenged by filing intra court appeal being L.P.A. No. 735 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 747 of 2018 which has also been dismissed vide order dated 15.06.2021. Against the said order the review petitioner nos. 5 to 15 have moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing special leave petition being S.L.P. No. 14185-14186 of 2022 but the same has also not been entertained taking in to consideration that the impleadment petition has been filed by the review petitioner nos. 5 to 15 in Civil Appeal No. 2793-98 of 2023 arising out of L.P.A. No. 297 of 2018 along with other batch cases. 19. 5 to 15 in Civil Appeal No. 2793-98 of 2023 arising out of L.P.A. No. 297 of 2018 along with other batch cases. 19. In the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court order passed in Civil Appeal No. 2793-98 of 2023, the LPA No. 297 of 2018 along with LPA No.473 of 2018, LPA No.474 of 2018, LPA No.475 of 2018 LPA No.476 of 2018, and LPA No.580 of 2018 have been again listed and the same have been disposed vide order dated 17.10.2023. 20. It needs to refer herein that review petitioners no. 5 to 15 were not the party in the said intra court appeal i.e LPA No. 297 of 2018 along with LPA No.473 of 2018, LPA No.474 of 2018, LPA No.475 of 2018 LPA No.476 of 2018, and LPA No.580 of 2018 but even then, review petitioners no. 5 to 15 have challenged the order dated17.10.2023 in the instant review petitions. Submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioners: 21. The ground for review as per the learned counsel for the review petitioners is: (i) The review petitioners, particularly, petitioner no.1 to 4 the appellants of L.P.A. Nos. 297 of 2018; 474 of 2018; 476 of 2018 and; 580 of 2018 respectively have sought for review of the order on the ground that four questions which were even admitted to be out of syllabus, the marks having not been allotted therein due to which they have been shown to be not qualified by not getting the 50% in aggregate in both Part-I and Part-II papers. (ii) The contention has been raised that if the questions are found to be out of syllabus, then the marks for the said questions ought to have been allotted to the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 and if that would have been done, then the petitioner nos. 1 to 4 would have got the qualifying marks by adding the marks in Part-I and Part-II which is the reason for their disqualification as has been referred in the order sought to be reviewed dated 17.10.2023. 22. The order dated 17.10.2023 passed in L.P.A. Nos. 297 of 2018; 474 of 2018; 476 of 2018 and; 580 of 2018 has mainly been sought to be reviewed on behalf of petitioner nos. 1 to 4 on these grounds. 23. While the review petitioner nos. 22. The order dated 17.10.2023 passed in L.P.A. Nos. 297 of 2018; 474 of 2018; 476 of 2018 and; 580 of 2018 has mainly been sought to be reviewed on behalf of petitioner nos. 1 to 4 on these grounds. 23. While the review petitioner nos. 5 to 15 have sought for review of the said order on the ground of non-consideration of their cases by not allotting the marks in the questions which have been found to be having wrong answers. 24. The ground has been taken that they are also entitled to get the marks for the questions whose answers have been found to be incorrect. Submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent JSSC: 25. While on the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (in short, the Commission), has raised the following grounds by way of objection: (i) So far as the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 are concerned, their cases have been considered after the revival of the L.P.A. Nos. 297 of 2018; 474 of 2018; 476 of 2018 and; 580 of 2018 to which these review petitioners were party and based upon the order passed by this Court dated 17.10.2023 which is sought to be reviewed herein, the expert committee has not found these four review petitioners qualified since they have not found to be qualified by not getting the aggregate marks in both the papers which is the mandatory requirement for passing in the written tests. (ii) The review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 cannot claim their appointment the moment they have been found to be fail in Part-I and Part-II papers by not getting the 50% marks in both the papers. Their cases have been considered on the basis of the report of the expert committee wherein 05 (five) questions which were having with the wrong answers, marks have been allotted in their favour but since they have not qualified by not getting the marks in Paper-I and II, rather they have got less than 50% marks, as such, they have been declared to be disqualified which would be evident from the order dated 17.10.2023 passed in L.P.A. Nos. 297 of 2018; 474 of 2018; 476 of 2018 and 580 of 2018 after revival of the said appeal by the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2793-98 of 2023 passed on 28.04.2023. (iii) It has been contended that so far as the cases of petitioner nos. 1 to 4 are concerned, they have filed an affidavit on 22.06.2023 wherein they have specifically stated that they are not pressing the issue of question being out of syllabus and as such, it is not available for them now to raise such issue of question having been not from the syllabus and hence, raising the issue of question having been out of syllabus once not pressed, cannot be said to be a ground for review of the order. (iv) It has been contended by referring to the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that wherein the issue fell for consideration which has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to the consideration of the questions which were having wrong/incorrect answers as would be evident from paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of the said judgment, hence, these review petitioners, i.e., petitioner nos. 1 to 4 cannot be allowed to make out a fresh case which was not before the Hon’ble Apex Court since this Court is not sitting in its original jurisdiction. (v) The order was passed in L.P.A. Nos. 297 of 2018; 474 of 2018; 476 of 2018 and; 580 of 2018 on the basis of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case of limited remand, i.e. with respect to the consideration of the issue of questions which were having with wrong/incorrect answers. (vi) So far as the case of review petitioner nos. 5 to 15 are concerned, they cannot be allowed to take the benefit of the order passed in L.P.A. Nos. 297 of 2018; 474 of 2018; 476 of 2018 and; 580 of 2018 since they have filed a separate writ petition before this Court being 2923 of 2018 (para 4 of IA No. 7495 of 2024) which has been withdrawn as would be evident from the order dated 07.08.2018. The said order of withdrawal has been challenged by filing civil misc. petition but the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2018 being C.M.P. No.443 of 2018. The said order of withdrawal has been challenged by filing civil misc. petition but the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2018 being C.M.P. No.443 of 2018. (vii) It has been submitted that the order passed in C.M.P. No. 443 of 2018 has been challenged by filing intra court appeal being L.P.A. No. 735 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 747 of 2018 which has also been dismissed on 15.06.2021 against which the review petitioner nos. 5 to 15 have moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing special leave petition being S.L.P. No. 14185-14186 of 2022 but the same has also not been entertained. (viii) The contention, therefore, has been raised that the review petitioner nos. 5 to 15 cannot be allowed to take aid of the order passed in different L.P.A., i.e., L.P.A. Nos. 297 of 2018, 474 of 2018, 476 of 2018 and 580 of 2018 and their cases, on merit, has also not been adjudicated rather the writ petition in its inception has been withdrawn and that order of withdrawal has been upheld up to the level of Hon’ble Supreme Court. (ix) It has been contended that the question of seeking review will only be there if the case of the review petitioner nos. 5 to 15 would have been decided on merit when the litigation itself has been withdrawn then where is the question to review the order when the order of withdrawal has attained its finality. (x) It has been contended that merely because the review petitioner nos. 5 to 15 have been impleaded in S.L.P. arising out of L.P.A. Nos. 297 of 2018; 473 of 2018, 474 of 2018; 475 of 2018, 476 of 2018 and; 580 of 2018 then the review petitioner nos. 5 to 15 have got no locus to get parity with the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 with respect to consideration of their cases by way of adjudication under the jurisdiction of review. Response of the learned counsel for the review petitioners: 26. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel, in response, has not disputed the fact about the withdrawal of the writ petition preferred by the review petitioner nos.5 to 15 since no rebuttal reply, to the counter affidavit to that effect having been filed on behalf of the Commission, has been filed by the said review petitioner nos.5 to 15. 27. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel, in response, has not disputed the fact about the withdrawal of the writ petition preferred by the review petitioner nos.5 to 15 since no rebuttal reply, to the counter affidavit to that effect having been filed on behalf of the Commission, has been filed by the said review petitioner nos.5 to 15. 27. He has submitted that review petitioner nos.5 to 15 should not have filed the review petition along with review petitioner nos. 1 to 4. 28. It has been submitted that the review is well maintainable on behalf of review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 in view of the order passed by this Court wherein 09 questions have been referred before the expert committee as would be evident from the order dated 18.07.2023 passed in LPA No. 297 of 2018 along with LPA No.473 of 2018, LPA No.474 of 2018, LPA No.475 of 2018, LPA No.476 of 2018 and LPA No.580 of 2018 the order sought to be reviewed but only05 questions have been taken into consideration. Response of the learned counsel for the JSSC : 29. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission, upon such argument, has submitted that it appears that in the order dated 18.07.2023, the said order is having with some typographical error although the reference of the affidavit dated 22.06.2023 has been made wherein as would be evident from paragraph no. 3 that the writ petitioners have not pressed the questions out of syllabus, as such, 05 questions ought to have been sent before the expert committee but it has been referred in the order dated 18.07.2023 appears to be typographical error sending 09 questions before the expert committee. 30. It has been contended that since there is some typographical error which is very much substantiated from the affidavit dated 22.06.2023 wherein at per paragraph 3, the issue of questions being out of syllabus since has not been pressed and hence, the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 cannot be allowed to take advantage if in the order dated 18.07.2023 some typographical error has crept up. 31. It has been contended that the contention of the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 cannot be allowed to take advantage if in the order dated 18.07.2023 some typographical error has crept up. 31. It has been contended that the contention of the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 is not proper and particularly when they are in service working in the Jharkhand Police then instead of taking aid of the typographical error occurred in the order dated 18.07.2023 they should have relied upon the affidavit dated 22.06.2023 and in that view of the matter, they should not have pressed the same for consideration of their marks on the basis of the questions which has been said to be out of syllabus. 32. It has been contended that however the expert committee has considered all the 09 questions and in 04 questions which have been found to be out of syllabus, no marks have been allotted, i.e., keeping the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the main issue of review was the incorrect answer of the question. 33. Learned counsel for the Commission, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the review petition, therefore, is fit to be dismissed with heavy cost. Analysis 34. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by this Court in the order dated 17.10.2023. 35. In addition to the factual aspect as referred in the preceding paragraphs, it also needs to refer herein based upon the material available on record that so far as it relates to LPA No. 297 of 2018 , LPA No.473 of 2018, LPA No.474 of 2018, LPA No.475 of 2018 LPA No.476 of 2018, and LPA No.580 of 2018, the appellants of those appeals had preferred special leave petition being Civil Appeal Nos. 2793-98 of 2023. 36. The review petitioner nos. 5 to 15 who are the petitioners of the writ petition which had been withdrawn against which civil misc. petition being C.M.P. No. 443 of 2018 had been filed, the same had also been dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2018 which was challenged before the Division Bench in the intra Court appeal being L.P.A. No. 735 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 747 of 2018 which has also been dismissed on 15.06.2021. 37. The review petitioner nos. 5 to 15 have preferred separate S.L.P.before the Hon’ble Supreme Court being S.L.P. No. 14185-14186 of2022. 38. The review petitioner nos. 37. The review petitioner nos. 5 to 15 have preferred separate S.L.P.before the Hon’ble Supreme Court being S.L.P. No. 14185-14186 of2022. 38. The review petitioner nos. 5 to 15 had also filed impleadment petition in Civil Appeal No. 2793-98 of 2023 arising out of L.P.A. No. 297 of 2018, LPA No.473 of 2018, LPA No.474 of 2018, LPA No.475 of 2018, LPA No.476 of 2018, and LPA No.580 of 2018 being I.A. No. being IA No. 122662/2021 and IA No. 122530/2021. The said interlocutory application has been allowed by passing order of impleadment dated 13.04.2023. 39. The S.L.P. which has been preferred by the review petitioner nos. 5 to 15 has been dismissed on the ground of their impleadment in Civil Appeal No. 2793-98 of 2023. For ready reference, the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 14185-14186/2022 is being referred as under: “UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Considering the fact that in the Special Leave Petitions arising out of the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 568/2018, the very applicants have filed an applications for impleadment, we see no reason to entertain the present Special Leave Petitions. However, it is observed that by not entertaining the present Special Leave Petitions, the rights of the petitioners, if any, are not affected and all the rights and contentions which may be available to the petitioners are kept open to be considered in the impleadment applications in Special Leave Petitions, arising out of the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.568/2018. With this, the present Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of. Pending application (s) shall stand disposed of.” 40. The Hon’ble Apex Court while hearing the Civil Appeal No. 2793-2798 of 2023 arising out of L.P.A. No. 297 of 2018, LPA No.473 of2018, LPA No.474 of 2018, LPA No.475 of 2018 LPA No.476 of 2018 and LPA No.580 of 2018 had passed the order on 28.04.2023 whereby and whereunder, the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid intra court appeals has been quashed and set aside with a direction to the High Court to decide the issue afresh. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the said order/judgment is being referred as under: “9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeals are allowed in part. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the said order/judgment is being referred as under: “9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeals are allowed in part. The impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeals is hereby quashed and set aside. Matters are remitted back to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh decision of Letters Patent Appeals in accordance with law and on its own merits and in light of the observations made hereinabove. The Letters Patent Appeals on remand be decided and disposed of at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date of the present order. As observed hereinabove, it will be open for the Division Bench of the High Court to call for the expert’s opinion with respect to the questions of which the answers were alleged to be incorrect for which the objections were raised. However, the same is left to the High Court. Present appeals are accordingly allowed in terms of the present order. No costs.” 41. The LPA No. 297 of 2018 along with LPA No.473 of 2018, LPA No.474 of 2018, LPA No.475 of 2018 LPA No.476 of 2018, and LPA No.580 of 2018 has been revived and listed before this Bench on 09.05.2023 and thereafter hearing in the said letters patent appeal had started and the argument on behalf of the respective parties has been made on different dates. 42. It is evident from the record that the issue of referring the 09 questions was before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 had filed affidavit on 22.06.2023 stating that they are not pressing the questions which are out of syllabus rather they are insisting upon the scrutiny of the answer of the questions which has been found to be incorrect by sending it before the expert committee. 43. This Court has passed the orders on respective dates and referred all09 questions by constituting an expert committee in the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The reference has been made in. 43. This Court has passed the orders on respective dates and referred all09 questions by constituting an expert committee in the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The reference has been made in. LPA No. 297 of 2018, LPA No.473 of 2018, LPA No.474 of 2018, LPA No.475 of 2018 LPA No.476 of 2018, and LPA No.580 of 2018 of its revival by requesting the expert committee to give opinion with respect to 09 questions which is in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 44. It needs to refer herein by making reference of paragraph no. 6 of the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein while making reference of 09 questions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed order for scrutiny of 09 questions based upon the incorrect answers. 45. Therefore, it is admitted case of the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 that they are only concerned with the questions which are having with the incorrect answers and that was also pleading before the Hon’ble Apex Court based upon their objection in relevant time. 46. The expert committee has given its opinion and found 3 candidates out of 07 candidates to be qualified holding appellants who are the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 herein as disqualified since they have scored less than 50% marks in Paper-I and II, in aggregate. 47. This Court, on consideration of the report of the expert committee constituted in light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in civil appeal no. 2793-98 of 2023 has disposed of the LPA No.473 of 2018, LPA No.474 of 2018, LPA No.475 of 2018 LPA No.476 of 2018, and LPA No.580 of 2018 vide order dated 17.10.2023 with a direction of issuance of appointment letters in favour of the successful candidates, i.e., in favour of 03 candidates, while 04 candidates(review petitioners 1 to 4 herein) who have been declared to be disqualified, no order was passed for issuance of their appointment letters. 48. The aforesaid fact has been incorporated in the order dated17.10.2023 by way of tabular chart. For ready reference, the reference of the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment right from the reference of the affidavit dated 22.06.2023 is being referred as under: 11. 48. The aforesaid fact has been incorporated in the order dated17.10.2023 by way of tabular chart. For ready reference, the reference of the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment right from the reference of the affidavit dated 22.06.2023 is being referred as under: 11. The matters were thereafter heard on 04.07.2023 and on that date, as would appear from the order dated 04.07.2023, that the learned counsel for the appellants had submitted that although four questions were altogether there as has been referred at paragraph 8 of the judgment passed by this Court but due to inadvertence reference of five questions have made as under paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission had submitted by referring to paragraph 9 of the judgment passed by this Court wherein the prayer with respect to out of syllabus question i.e., question no. 9, 13, 23 and 37 was not pressed. The further submission was made that however at paragraph 5 the reference of out of syllabus question has also been made. 13. Upon such submission made on behalf of learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, learned counsel for the appellants had sought time for a week to file fresh affidavit. Accordingly, the matters were posted on 11th July, 2023, for ready reference order dated 4th July, 2023 is being quoted hereunder as:- “Order No. 22/Dated 4th July, 2023 Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the appellants at the outset has submitted by making submission that although four questions were altogether there as has been referred at paragraph 8 of the judgment passed by this Court but due to inadvertence reference of five questions have made as under paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC has submitted by referring to paragraph 9 of the judgment passed by this Court wherein the prayer with respect to out of syllabus question i.e., question no. 9, 13, 23 and 37 was not pressed. He has further submitted that however at paragraph 5 the reference of out of syllabus question has also been made. Upon this, Mr. Tandon, learned counsel for the appellants has sought for time for a week to file fresh affidavit. Accordingly, list this case on 11th July, 2023 so that in the meantime the affidavit be filed by the appellants.” 18. Upon this, Mr. Tandon, learned counsel for the appellants has sought for time for a week to file fresh affidavit. Accordingly, list this case on 11th July, 2023 so that in the meantime the affidavit be filed by the appellants.” 18. Learned counsel for the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission had produced the original record on 18th July, 2023. On that date, this Court had directed the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission to constitute the Expert Committee and refer the entire details of nine questions, as per the reference made at paragraph-4 and 5 of the affidavit along with the materials in aid of the Committee to furnish its opinion. Thereafter, the matters were posted on 7th August, L.P.A. No.297 of 20182023 so as to reach the opinion of the Expert Committee on or before the next date of hearing in a sealed cover. ----- 25. Appellant Dharmendra Kumar in L.P.A. No.297 of 2018, Bijayendra Kumar Sah, appellant in L.P.A. No.474 of 2018 and Manjay Kumar, appellant in L.P.A. No.580 of 2018 have been declared to be not qualified because combined marks of Paper-2 and Paper-3 is less than 50%. 26. However, appellant Thaneshwar Ravidas in L.P.A. No.476 of 2018 has been declared to be not qualified because combined marks of Paper-2 and Paper-3 is less than 45% and marks in paper-2 is less than 40%. 49. The review petitioner nos. 1 to 4, thereafter, have filed the present review petition raising the ground as referred above. 50. The ground for review has been taken that 04 questions which are out of syllabus ought to have been taken into consideration by allotting marks in their favour and if that would have been done, then the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 would have been declared to be successful. 51. The question which requires consideration is as to whether on the basis of the consideration of non-addition of marks which is said to be out of syllabus, can be a cause for filing the present review petition on behalf of the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4. 52. It has been admitted as referred herein by making reference of the affidavit dated 22.06.2023 which has also been taken note in the order dated 18.07.2023 wherein the present review petitioner nos. 1 to 4. 52. It has been admitted as referred herein by making reference of the affidavit dated 22.06.2023 which has also been taken note in the order dated 18.07.2023 wherein the present review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 have filed affidavit confining their grievance only with respect to the issue of incorrect answers, i.e., 05 in number while they have filed affidavit stating therein that they are not pressing the questions which have been asked out of syllabus. For ready reference, the very part of the affidavit is being referred as under: “That the appellants humbly submit that though they intend to press all the nine questions in issue for sending to the expert committee as referred to in the judgement dated 23.04.2018, however, in view of the fact that the concession was given by the Learned Advocate appearing in this appeal at earlier point of time as referred in para 9 thereof, the appellants humbly submit that they have no objection if only five questions (arising from the questions having incorrect answers) may be referred to expert committee.” 53. The argument has been advanced by taking note of the order dated18.07.2023 wherein altogether 09 questions have been referred before the expert committee for its scrutiny and the said 09 questions includes 04 questions which are out of syllabus, hence, the expert committee ought to have given a finding to that effect by allotting the marks with respect to the questions which have been asked out of syllabus. 54. This Court, on scrutiny, has found that the reference of the 09 questions has been made having been sent before the expert committee. 55. This Court has gone through the affidavit dated 22.06.2023 regarding the issue of reference of 09 questions before the expert committee that there appears to be some typographical error and the reference of 09 questions have been made which is not in consonance with the affidavit dated 22.06.2023. 56. The moment the reference of the affidavit dated 22.06.2023 has been made in the order dated 18.07.2023 then only 05 questions ought to have been referred before the expert committee leaving apart 04 questions which are out of syllabus since the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 had also confined their prayer with respect to scrutiny of the questions which are having with the incorrect answers. 57. 1 to 4 had also confined their prayer with respect to scrutiny of the questions which are having with the incorrect answers. 57. This Court has passed the order in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after the order of remand by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said order is a limited remand order and if the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court will be taken into consideration then it would be evident that the concern of the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was the scrutiny of their questions whose answers have been mentioned as incorrect and which were also the objection filed on behalf of the review petitioners and that is the reason the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made reference of the scrutiny to be made by the expert committee of the questions which are having with the incorrect answers. The same would be evident from bare perusal of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and for ready reference, relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is being referred as under: “6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the original writ petitioners applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police. Their cases were not considered for further appointment as they were found ineligible, having failed to achieve the minimum qualifying marks. They submitted their objections with respect to nine questions and according to the original writ petitioners, answers with respect to nine questions were incorrect. The Division Bench of the High Court has refused to consider the objections on merits, mainly, on the ground that objections were raised beyond the prescribed period of submitting the objections. The High Court has noted that the objections were filed on 06.01.2018 and 08.01.2018. However, it is the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that the first objection was submitted on 01.12.2017 the copy of which is placed on record (page 235 of SLP paper books). Therefore, the High Court ought to have considered the objections on merits and ought to have considered obtaining the expert’s opinion. The High Court has as such taken too technical view and has erred in refusing to consider the objections on merits. Therefore, the High Court ought to have considered the objections on merits and ought to have considered obtaining the expert’s opinion. The High Court has as such taken too technical view and has erred in refusing to consider the objections on merits. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even if, the objections were raised on 06.01.2018 and 08.01.2018, the same were prior to the date of the declaration of result i.e., on 09.01.2018. Therefore, the High Court ought to have considered the objections on merits and/or called for the expert’s opinion on nine questions of which as per the original writ petitioners, answers were incorrect. If the expert’s opinion would have been taken on the correct answers and/or on the answers with respect to such nine questions for which the objections were raised, the truth would have come out.” 58. It is settled position of law that the High Court is having inherent jurisdiction/power to rectify its error apparent on the face of the order or any facts could not have been brought to the notice of the Court in spite of due diligence. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors., [ AIR 1954 SC 526 ] , particularly at paragraph-32 which reads as hereunder: - “ 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. 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.” 49. 59. Likewise, in the case of Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon Vs. 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.” 60. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (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. 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.” 61. (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.” 61. It is evident from the aforesaid proposition of law that the jurisdiction of the Court who is to review the order, is very limited and the same can only be exercised if there is error apparent on the face of the order or any facts could not have been brought to the notice of the Court in spite of due diligence. 62. Since the law is settled that to review the order passed by the Court is very limited and order of review can only be passed in the circumstances of availability of certain conditions as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment rendered in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer & Anr. , (2024) 2 SCC 362 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the provision of Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. which is pari materia to Rule 203 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, wherein, the proposition has been laid down to entertain the review, has held at paragraphs-16.1 to 16.8 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. 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. …” 63. This Court in view of the proposition as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove and on consideration of the affidavit dated 22.06.2023 wherein the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 have confined their prayer with respect to the questions which were having with incorrect answers and not pressed the questions which were asked out of syllabus. 64. The order dated 18.07.2023 appears to suffer from error being not in consonance with the averment made on oath, i.e., in the affidavit dated 22.06.2023 and the moment the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 have not pressed the questions which have been asked out of syllabus then they cannot be allowed to agitate the issue contrary to their statement which they have stated in the affidavit. 65. Further, it is also the purport of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein the expert committee was to scrutinize the questions which were having with the incorrect answers since there is no reference of the questions having been asked out of syllabus. The review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 are now trying to make out a new case which was never before the Hon’ble Apex Court. 66. This Court is not exercising the power said to in original side rather this Court has passed the order afresh after the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on remand and the Hon’ble Apex Court has passed the order restricting the consideration of the issue, i.e., the consideration of the expert committee for the purpose of its opinion with respect to the questions having with the incorrect answers. 67. This Court further needs to refer herein that the review petitioner nos. 67. This Court further needs to refer herein that the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 have tried to impress upon the Court in order to make out a case only based upon the order passed by this Court dated 18.07.2023 by suppressing the fact with respect to their statement made in the affidavit dated 22.06.2023. 68. The review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 are in service that too in the Jharkhand State Police and if there was any error by this court while recording their statement made in the affidavit dated 22.06.2023, it was the bounden duty of the aforesaid review petitioners to bring it to the notice of the Court but no such effort has been taken by them and even the learned counsel has not pointed out the same rather the same was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent- Commission and then this Court has seen the affidavit dated 22.06.2023 which is available on record which was also been confronted with the learned counsel for the review petitioners, then the case has been tried to be made out that since the reference of 09 questions are there, hence, the same will also include the questions having been asked out of syllabus. 69. But, we are not in agreement with the same reason being that the questions asked out of syllabus had not been the subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which would be evident from the perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as has been referred hereinabove also, hence, merely because 09 questions are there, 04 questions asked from out of syllabus cannot be said to be subject matter of scrutiny by the expert committee that is on the basis of the wrong reference of the question of number made by this Court in the order dated 18.07.2023 wherein the reference of 05 questions having with the incorrect answers has been admitted to be sent before the expert committee in paragraph-3 of the affidavit dated 22.06.2023 but the reference in the order dated 18.07.2023 of 09 questions has been made in place of 05 questions as per the affidavit filed by the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 themselves.The error, if any, has crept up in the order passed by this Court then it is the duty of the party concerned to point out the same by showing their bona fide that they have approached the Court with clean hands but instead of doing so, they have tried to take advantage of the wrong reference of number of questions mentioned in the order dated 18.07.2023 as 09 questions in place of 05 questions as per the affidavit dated 22.06.2023.The said error is also apparent by going through the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein the order being the order in the nature of limited remand to send the questions having incorrect answers before the expert committed. There is no reference of the questions said to be out of syllabus in the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. This is being emphasized herein that the subject matter before the Hon’ble Apex Court was not with respect to the questions said to be out of syllabus rather the questions having with the incorrect answers and that is also evident from paragraph-3 of the affidavit dated 22.06.2023. 70. The review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 were well before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and they were having with the knowledge of entire fact and that is the reason they have filed an affidavit herein making the case in consonance to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by not pressing the questions which have been asked out of syllabus but, thereafter, the present review petition has been filed contrary to the statement made in the affidavit dated 22.06.2023 as also contrary to the grounds upon which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has remitted the matter for consideration by this Court for the purpose of constituting an expert committee and passing the order. 71. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 have not approached the Court with clean hands coupled with the fact that the ground which has been taken is contrary to their own affidavit dated 22.06.2023, hence, once they have restricted their prayer with respect to the consideration of their cases on the basis of the questions having with the incorrect answer, they cannot be allowed to file review other than the aforesaid consideration of incorrect answers by filing the present review petition. 72. 72. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 have failed to make out a case for review as per the established law as referred hereinabove and as such, the present review petition, so far as it relates to the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4, is hereby, dismissed. 73. So far as the case of the review petitioner nos. 5 to 15 is concerned, at the outset, it needs to refer herein that this Court has failed to understand that why the present review petitioner nos. 5 to 15 have filed the review petition along with review petitioner nos. 1 to 4. 74. Reason for such observation is that Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission has pointed out from the pleading made in the counter affidavit appended with the order passed by this Court wherein these review petitioners had filed writ petition for the similar cause but the said writ petition had been withdrawn vide order dated 07.08.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2923 of 2018. For ready reference, the said order is being referred as under: “After some argument, Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this application. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection for the same. Prayer is allowed. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed as withdrawn.” 75. Subsequent thereto, civil misc. petition has been filed being C.M.P. No. 443 of 2018 which has also been dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2018. For ready reference, the said order is being referred as under: “The instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition (for short ‘C.M.P.’) has been filed for recall/ review/ modification of order dated 07.08.2018, passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 2923 of 2018. From perusal of the records, it appears that at the very outset, Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made a prayer for withdrawal of the writ and learned counsel for the respondents did not object to the same and in view of fair submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The original writ petition being W.P.(S). No. 2923 of 2018 was preferred by the petitioners challenging the questions asked in the Jharkhand Police Sub- Inspector Limited Competitive Examination, 2017, alleging therein that some of the questions asked in the examination were out of syllabus. The original writ petition being W.P.(S). No. 2923 of 2018 was preferred by the petitioners challenging the questions asked in the Jharkhand Police Sub- Inspector Limited Competitive Examination, 2017, alleging therein that some of the questions asked in the examination were out of syllabus. However, it is crystal clear that learned counsel for the petitioners having full knowledge that similar issue has already been decided by this Court in W.P. (S) 568 of 2018 (Aashish Kumar Chaurasiya Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), in which this Court, after giving ample opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel for the parties had dismissed the said writ petition vide its order dated 18.04.2018, prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition, being W.P.(S). No. 2923 of 2018. However, in the present C.M.P. ground has been taken that petitioners had the intentions to get the order and judgment in accordance with the judgment passed in W.P.(S). No. 568 of 2018. In view of the aforesaid facts, the grounds taken by the petitioners is not acceptable to this Court. It seems that the petitioners have not approached this Court by way of the instant C.M.P. with clean hands. No justifiable grounds is made for recall/ review/ modification of order dated 07.08.2018, passed by this 2 Court in W.P.(S). No. 2923 of 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner was fully aware of the submissions made in the open Court and as such, the prayer made in the C.M.P. cannot be allowed and the order passed with the consent of both sides cannot be recalled/ reviewed/ modified. I do not find any merit in the instant C.M.P. and hence, it is dismissed.” 76. Thereafter, the aforesaid order was challenged before the intra court by filing letter patent appeal being L.P.A. No. 735 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 747 of 2018 which has also been dismissed on 15.06.2021. For ready reference, the said order is being referred as under: “1. Thereafter, the aforesaid order was challenged before the intra court by filing letter patent appeal being L.P.A. No. 735 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 747 of 2018 which has also been dismissed on 15.06.2021. For ready reference, the said order is being referred as under: “1. Both the appeals have been filed under Clause-10 of Letters Patent of Patna High Court and are directed against the order dated 23.10.2018 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP) No. 443 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for recall/review/modification of order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2923 of 2018, by which, the writ petition has been allowed to be withdrawn by the learned counsel representing the writ petitioners before the writ Court with the consent of the learned counsel for the respondents, has been rejected by dismissing the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Petition. 2. The fact arises for filing these Letters Patent Appeals are that the writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P.(S) No.2923 of 2018 for the following reliefs:- (a) For grant of a writ in the nature of mandamus to order/direct the respondent no.2 to struck down Question No.54, 82 & 41 in question booklet No.73A corresponding to Question No.11,71 & 108 question booklet No.73B, Question No.88, 62 & 90 in question booklet No.73C and Question No.114, 17 & 110 in question booklet No.73D asked in Paper No.III of Jharkhand Police Sub Inspector Limited Competitive Exam 2017 for want of correct option; (b) For grant of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to struck down question No.36,48,34,41,38,7,74,26,59,8 & 12 in question booklet No.72A corresponding to question no.58,2,23,41,38,45,77,21,51,36 & 43 in question booklet No.72B similarly question No.31,2,23,37,9,36,75,13,16,47 & 51 in question booklet No.72C and question No.9,14,10,28,36,56,75,27,44,26 &24 in question booklet code 72 D asked in paper No. II in Jharkhand Police Sub Inspector Limited Competitive Exam 2017 being out of syllabus and wrong in respect of its advertisement being Advertisement No.09/2017; (c) For grant of a direction to Respondent No.2 to award one marks each to every disputed question and publish a revise result; and (d) For a direction to the Respondent No.2 to enhance the marks obtained by the petitioners as per the revised result so published. 3. 3. The writ petition was posted for hearing on 07.08.2018 and after making some argument, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners, namely, Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition, which has not been objected by the learned counsel representing the respondents and accordingly, the prayer for withdrawal was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, for ready reference, the aforesaid order is being referred hereinbelow:- “After some argument, Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this application. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection for the same. Prayer is allowed. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed as withdrawn.” The writ petitioners, thereafter, have filed a petition under Section 151 of CPC for grant of recall/review/modification of order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2923 of 2018. The aforesaid petition has finally been decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court by passing an order on 23.10.2018 and the ground agitated therein has been found to be not acceptable to the writ Court and accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been dismissed, for ready reference, the order dated 23.10.2018 reads hereunder as:- “The instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition (for short "C.M.P.") has been filed for recall/review/modification of order dated 07.08.2018, passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No.2923 of 2018. From perusal of the records, it appears that at the very outset, Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made a prayer for withdrawal of the writ and learned counsel for the respondents did not object to the same and in view of fair submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The original writ petition being W.P.(S). No.2923 of 2018 was preferred by the petitioners challenging the questions asked in the Jharkhand Police Sub-Inspector Limited Competitive Examination, 2017, alleging therein that some of the questions asked in the examination were out of syllabus. However, it is crystal clear that learned counsel for the petitioners having full knowledge that similar issue has already been decided by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 568 of 2018 (Aashish Kumar Chaurasiya Vs. However, it is crystal clear that learned counsel for the petitioners having full knowledge that similar issue has already been decided by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 568 of 2018 (Aashish Kumar Chaurasiya Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), in which this Court, after giving ample opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel for the parties had dismissed the said writ petition vide its order dated 18.04.2018, prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition, being W.P.(S). No.2923 of 2018. However, in the present C.M.P. ground has been taken that petitioners had the intentions to get the order and judgment in accordance with the judgment passed in W.P.(S). No.568 of 2018. In view of the aforesaid facts, the grounds taken by the petitioners is not acceptable to this Court. It seems that the petitioners have not approached this Court by way of the instant C.M.P. with clean hands, No justifiable ground is made for recall/review/modification of order dated 07.08.2018, passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No.2923 of 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner was fully aware of the submissions made in the open Court and as such, the prayer made in the C.M.P. cannot be allowed and the order passed with the consent of both sides cannot be recalled/reviewed/modified. I do not find any merit in the instant C.M.P. and hence, it is dismissed.” 4. Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in L.P.A. No.735 of 2018 and Ms. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in L.P.A. No.747 of 2018 have jointly argued that the writ petitioners had the intentions to get the order and judgment in accordance with the judgment passed in writ petition being W.P.(S) No.568 of 2018 but the matter was dismissed as withdrawn and as such, Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to modify the order dated 07.08.2018 to the extent that the similar order be passed as the order passed in W.P.(S) No.568 of 2018 otherwise the writ petitioners would greatly be prejudiced. It has further been contended that letters patent appeal since has been filed against the order passed by the another learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.568 of 2018 and therefore, the writ petitioners had the intention to be a part of the letters patent appeal but since the present writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn, the right to invoke the appellate jurisdiction has been extinguished and therefore, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioners before the writ Court was intended to obtain the similar order as passed in W.P.(S) No.568 of 2018 and not to withdraw the same. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that now the aforesaid letters patent appeal being L.P.A. No.297 of 2018 has been disposed of and as such, by taking sympathetic view, the writ petition may be restored to its original file by recalling the order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which, the writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn. 5. Per Contra, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned G.A.-V appearing for the respondent-State and Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the JSSC have jointly submitted by raising the issue of maintainability of the present letters patent appeals on the ground that the order which has been impugned in these letters patent appeals cannot be construed to be the judgment in the eye of Law and since it is not a judgment, therefore, the instant letters patent appeals will not be maintainable. Further, it has been argued that once the learned counsel for the writ petitioners withdrew the writ petition, basis upon which the writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn, subsequent thereto, filing an application for recall of the aforesaid order by engaging another counsel cannot be said to be proper and once the Court has accepted the argument of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners for withdrawal of the writ petition by passing an order in the “open Court” such application for recall/modification/review of the aforesaid order cannot be said to be maintainable and taking into consideration these aspects of the matter, the learned Single Judge is correct in rejecting the Civil Miscellaneous Petition by making an observation that the writ petitioners have not approached the writ Court with clean hands, therefore, the instant intra court appeals are fit to be dismissed. 6. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record and gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 7. This Court before looking into the legality and propriety of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge under Section 151 of CPC and before scrutinizing the same, it would be relevant to refer certain admitted facts of the case i.e., the writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of mandamus as would be evident from the prayer referred and quoted hereinabove. It is further admitted fact that on 07.08.2018, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, after making some argument has withdrawn the writ petition which has not been objected by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents as would be evident from the order dated 07.08.2018 quoted hereinabove, basis upon which, the writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, the writ petitioners have filed a petition under Section 151 of CPC for recall/review/modification of order dated 07.08.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.2923 of 2018 by the learned Single Judge which has been rejected as per the order dated 23.10.2018 passed in C.M.P. No.443 of 2018 as referred hereinabove. The learned Single Judge has observed while passing the order that the learned counsel representing the writ petitioners, namely, Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, made a prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition and the learned counsel for the respondents has not objected the same and in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Such submission has been made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners on the pretext that learned counsel for the petitioners having full knowledge that similar issue has already been decided by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 568 of 2018 (Aashish Kumar Chaurasiya Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), in which, the learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 18.04.2018, the order for withdrawal of the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2923 of 2018 has been passed. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), in which, the learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 18.04.2018, the order for withdrawal of the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2923 of 2018 has been passed. But in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition, the ground has been taken that the writ petitioners had the intentions to get the order and judgment in accordance with the judgment passed in W.P.(S) No.568 of 2018 and hence, according to the learned Single Judge, the ground taken by the petitioners has found not to be acceptable rather the learned Single Judge has taken such ground of approaching in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Petition not with clean hands, no justifiable ground has been made for recall/review/modification of order dated 07.08.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.2923 of 2018 and further, the writ Court has observed that the learned counsel for the writ petitioners was fully aware of the submissions made in the open Court and as such, the prayer made in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition has not found fit to be allowed and accordingly, the petition for recall/review/modification of the order dated 07.08.2018 has been rejected. 8. We, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciating the argument as also the material available on record, are of the view that following questions are required to be considered in these appeals: (i) Whether any order can be passed in this writ petition purely on sympathy as has been agitated by the learned counsel for the appellants? (ii) Whether the instant appeals are maintainable against the order passed in Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 151 of CPC? Both the issues are interlinked with each other, therefore, the same are being discussed and answered jointly. 9. It is the settled position of law that no order can be passed on sympathy rather the order is required to be passed in accordance with Law. 10. Both the issues are interlinked with each other, therefore, the same are being discussed and answered jointly. 9. It is the settled position of law that no order can be passed on sympathy rather the order is required to be passed in accordance with Law. 10. In the given facts of this case, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners have insisted upon the Court that if the order passed by the writ Court will not be allowed, the writ petitioners will suffer irreparable loss but the question herein is that when the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, before the writ Court, by virtue of accepting Vakalatnama filed on behalf of the writ petitioners after making some argument, if makes submission for withdrawal of the writ petition which has not been objected by the learned counsel for the respondents and in that view of the matter, if the writ Court accepts such submissions of withdrawal by dismissing the writ petition and subsequently, petition is being filed for recall/review/modification of such order, it will not be proper for the Higher Court to recall such order merely because of some intention as has been pleaded in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition to the effect that the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners before the writ Court had intended for disposal of the writ petition in terms of the order passed by the writ Court passed in W.P.(S) No.568 of 2018, cannot be acceptable 14 rather when the Court is passing an order in the open Court in presence of the learned counsel for the parties by accepting their submissions, basis upon which, the writ petition has been disposed of, herein only on the basis of the intention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners who was appeared before the writ Court, the order can be reversed. The instant appeals have been filed under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, wherein, it has been provided as under Part-VII of Rule 10 thereof to the effect that appeal to the High Court from Judges of the Court whereby and whereunder, an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Patna from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order) made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Bench, pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act, and that notwithstanding anything hereinabove provided an appeal shall lie to the said High court from a judgment of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act, the relevant part of the said Rule is being referred hereinbelow:- “10. Appeal to the High Court from Judges of the Court.-And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Patna from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order) made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act, and that notwithstanding anything hereinabove provided an appeal shall lie to the said High court from a judgment of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act………….” It is evident from the aforesaid Rule that the Letters Patent Appeal will lie against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court before the Division Court of the same High Court against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of the said High Court, therefore, for maintaining the appeal, it would be necessary to consider as to whether the order which is under challenge before the Division Bench under intra-court appeal jurisdiction, is a judgment in the eye of Law or not? There is no dispute with respect to the definition of the judgment as because the judgment means a decision or legal action of the Court for adjudicating the rights of the parties. There is no dispute with respect to the definition of the judgment as because the judgment means a decision or legal action of the Court for adjudicating the rights of the parties. Herein, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2923 of 2018 cannot be said to be a judgment in the eye of Law since on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners before the writ Court, the writ petition has been sought to be withdrawn and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn and once the writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn, it cannot be construed to be a judgment since no right has been adjudicated of the parties before the Court of Law and since it is not a judgment in the eye of Law, therefore, the instant letters patent appeals will not be maintainable. This argument can also not fit to be accepted as because, it has not been pleaded in the C.M.P. or no such certificate has been furnished by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners to the effect that statement of withdrawal of the writ petition has not been made and it has incorrectly been recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn and further, whatever has been observed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order that according to our considered view, it is the learned Single Judge before whom the statement for withdrawal of writ petition has been made in presence of the learned counsel for the respondents, as such, the learned Single Judge according to his subjective satisfaction about such contention has passed such order, therefore, it would not be proper for the Higher Court to interfere with such order. 11. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants have right to impress upon the Court that if the matter would not be adjudicated on merit, the writ petitioners will suffer irreparable loss but the question herein is that such consideration of such submission is not acceptable as because when the learned counsel representing the writ petitioners with all consciousness has made submission for withdrawal of the writ petition in the open Court knowing the fact fully that similar issue has already been decided in W.P.(S) No.568 of 2018 and if in such circumstances, the writ petition has sought to be withdrawn, basis upon which, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, considering the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants, it cannot be recalled on showing mercy as it is settled position of Law that no order can be passed on sympathy. Order by a Court of Law is to be passed as per Law. 12. This Court after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects of the matter is of the view that the instant appeals are not fit to be entertained, accordingly, both the appeals stand dismissed.” 77. Thereafter, these review petitioners have moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing special leave petition but the same has also been dismissed, however, the observation has been made that since they have been impleaded in Civil Appeal no. 2793-98 of 2023 arising out of LPA No.473 of 2018, LPA No.474 of 2018, LPA No.475 of 2018 LPA No.476 of 2018, and LPA No.580 of 2018, hence, they can well pursue their grievance therein. 78. The impleadment admittedly has been allowed of these review petitioners in Civil Appeal No. 2793-98 of 2023 arising out of LPA No.473 of 2018, LPA No.474 of 2018, LPA No.475 of 2018 LPA No.476 of 2018, and LPA No.580 of 2018 and other batch cases but merely on impleadment and in absence of any observation made therein by the Hon’ble Apex Court while finally deciding the Civil Appeal No. 2793-98 of 2023 there cannot be any consideration with respect to the grievance of the present review petitioner nos. 5 to 15 by claiming parity with the case of the review petitioner nos.1 to 4 because the case of the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 was altogether different as has been referred hereinabove. 79. 5 to 15 by claiming parity with the case of the review petitioner nos.1 to 4 because the case of the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 was altogether different as has been referred hereinabove. 79. The impleadment therein would have been effective if these review petitioners would have been party to the original letters patent appeal being LPA No.473 of 2018, LPA No.474 of 2018, LPA No.475 of 2018 LPA No.476 of 2018, and LPA No.580 of 2018 then it could be said that they were also party in the letters patent appeal and on revival of the said L.P.A. by the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the status of the appellants in the concerned L.P.A. will automatically be restored and they can have authority to address the Court on merit. But, that is not the fact herein rather these review petitioners were not party to the LPA No.473 of 2018, LPA No.474 of 2018, LPA No.475 of 2018 LPA No.476 of 2018, and LPA No.580 of 2018 rather their cases having not been decided on merit since they have withdrawn their writ petition which admittedly has attained its finality from the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 80. The question is that when in absence of any adjudication with respect to the issue of these review petitioners can they be allowed to take aid of the order passed in other litigation in the separate writ petition. 81. The answer of this Court will be in negative reason being that the order passed in LPA No.473 of 2018, LPA No.474 of 2018, LPA No.475 of 2018 LPA No.476 of 2018, and LPA No.580 of 2018 is judgment not in rem rather judgment in persona and since the claim/grievance having been raised individually by filing individual writ petitions then merely because in one case the order has been passed, parity will be claimed by the other litigant if the case of the said litigant has been withdrawn by the party himself. 82. The import of the withdrawal of the litigation will be that the litigants are not interested in pursuing the matter, however, C.M.P. has been filed against the said withdrawal and L.P.A. and S.L.P. has also been filed but all these litigations have been dismissed, meaning thereby, the withdrawal has attained its finality. 83. The review petitioner nos. 82. The import of the withdrawal of the litigation will be that the litigants are not interested in pursuing the matter, however, C.M.P. has been filed against the said withdrawal and L.P.A. and S.L.P. has also been filed but all these litigations have been dismissed, meaning thereby, the withdrawal has attained its finality. 83. The review petitioner nos. 5 to 15, in such circumstances, if will be given any benefit under the jurisdiction of review, then the order of withdrawal will amount to be reviewed which is not permissible. 84. The aforesaid fact of filing the present review petition by review petitioner nos. 5 to 15 along with the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 when has been confronted on being pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent-Commission to Mr. Indrajit Sinha, thereafter he has sought for adjournment to have instruction with respect to confining the prayer only with respect to review petitioner nos. 1 to 4. 85. The matter was taken up on, i.e. on 10.02.2025 and Mrs. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, learned counsel for the review petitioners associated with the office of Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned arguing counsel has submitted that there is no instruction to confine the prayer, however, the matter was adjourned due to non-availability of Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned arguing counsel for the review petitioners. 86. On 11.02.2025 the instant civil review was heard and in course of hearing the learned counsel for the review petitioners has submitted at Bar that the instant review petition by review petitioner nos. 5 to 15 along with the review petitioner nos. 1 to 4 should not have been done, thus, he has admitted the aforesaid fact. 87. Thus, this Court considers the same that the efforts have been taken to mislead the Court. 88. This Court, therefore, is of the view that in absence of any adjudication on merit, there cannot be any order of review. 89. Accordingly, the instant review petition with respect to review petitioner nos. 5 to 15 also stands dismissed. 90. In the result, the instant review petition stands dismissed. 91. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.