Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court allowed the review application filed by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC) and modified its earlier order dated 1 September 2021, which had directed the Commission to permit certain candidates to appear in interviews for recruitment to the post of drivers.
Justice Anil Kumar Sinha held that the earlier order was passed based on an erroneous factual submission that the writ petitioners had been declared successful in the written examination. The Court clarified that the petitioners had only secured minimum qualifying marks and were not among the candidates shortlisted for the proficiency test or interview. Consequently, the earlier direction allowing them to participate in the interview was recalled.
The Court observed:
“The order under review was the result of incorrect submission, which amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record.”
Accordingly, the review petition was allowed, and the original order was modified to exclude the petitioners from the interview process.
Facts
The Bihar Staff Selection Commission had issued an advertisement to fill 466 vacancies for the post of drivers in various state departments. The selection process comprised:
- Written test of 75 marks;
- Experience-based marks — five marks per completed year of contractual experience as a government driver, subject to a maximum of 25 marks;
- Combined merit list of 100 marks (written + experience); and
- Proficiency test (driving and vehicle knowledge) for shortlisted candidates — 50 marks each, totalling 100 marks.
Following the written test, 654 candidates (including the writ petitioners) were called to submit their experience certificates. The marks obtained in the written test and experience were combined, resulting in 1745 candidates qualifying with minimum marks. From this pool, 1075 candidates (2.5 times the number of vacancies) were shortlisted for the proficiency test based on category-wise cut-off marks:
- General: 55
- Backward Class: 49.5
- Most Backward Class: 35
- Scheduled Caste: 32
- Scheduled Tribe: 32.5
The writ petitioners, however, failed to meet the cut-off — their scores ranged between 42.75 and 50, placing them below the required marks for their categories.
Despite this, the High Court in 2021 directed the BSSC to permit them to attend the interview, based on submissions from both sides that they were “successful candidates.” BSSC subsequently sought review, stating that this was a factual error and that the order was based on mistaken information.
Issues
- Whether the High Court’s 2021 order permitting the petitioners to appear in the interview could be reviewed or modified.
- Whether the petitioners’ inclusion in the 1745-candidate list made them “successful candidates.”
- Whether the alleged mistake amounted to an “error apparent on the face of the record” warranting exercise of review jurisdiction.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Counsel for the BSSC argued that the 2021 judgment was passed on the basis of a misstatement of facts. The list of 1745 candidates was not a final merit list but a compilation of all candidates who had secured minimum qualifying marks (75+25). The final shortlisting for the proficiency test included only 1075 candidates, and the petitioners did not meet the cut-off for their categories.
The BSSC contended that no vested right accrued to the petitioners under the erroneous order and that the selection process had been completed fairly. The Commission emphasized that the review jurisdiction could be invoked where an error apparent on record was established, as recognized in several precedents.
Reliance was placed on:
- Sunil Vasudeva v. Sundar Gupta (2019) 17 SCC 385, and
- Central Bank of India v. SC/ST Employees Welfare Association (2016) 13 SCC 135,
where the Supreme Court held that a review can be entertained to correct a patent error on the face of the record.
The Full Bench decision in High Court of Judicature at Patna v. K.K. Chaubey (2015) 4 PLJR 328 was also cited to underscore that review jurisdiction extends to correcting errors arising from non-existent factual presumptions.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents (original writ petitioners) did not appear during the review hearing despite valid service of notice. Earlier, they had relied on the Commission’s submission in 2021 that their names appeared in the “list of successful candidates,” leading the Court to direct their participation in the interview. The BSSC clarified that this submission was factually mistaken and the list relied upon was misinterpreted.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the scope of review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Relying on Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320, it reiterated that a review cannot serve as an appeal but is confined to correcting an error apparent on record, discovery of new evidence, or other sufficient reason.
The Court also referred to the recent Supreme Court judgment in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927), which clarified:
“A mistake or error apparent on the face of the record must be something more than a mere error; it must be manifest and self-evident.”
Applying these principles, Justice Sinha noted that the Court’s earlier reliance on the list of 1745 candidates as a list of successful candidates was factually incorrect, constituting a patent error justifying review.
Precedent Analysis
- Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320 – Laid down that review is permissible only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, not for rehearing the case.
Reference: Guided the Court in distinguishing between an erroneous argument and an evident factual mistake. - Malleeswari v. K. Suguna (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927) – Defined the threshold for an “error apparent” as one that is manifest and not dependent on reasoning.
Reference: Applied to conclude that the mistaken assumption about the merit list met this threshold. - High Court of Judicature at Patna v. K.K. Chaubey (2015) 4 PLJR 328) – The Full Bench clarified that review jurisdiction may extend beyond technical grounds if refusal to correct an evident mistake would result in grave miscarriage of justice.
Reference: The Court relied on this doctrine to justify correcting its own factual oversight. - Sunil Vasudeva v. Sundar Gupta (2019) 17 SCC 385) and Central Bank of India v. SC/ST Employees Welfare Association (2016) 13 SCC 135) – Affirmed that review can be invoked where an order rests on an incorrect factual assumption.
Reference: Strengthened the petitioner’s contention that mistaken factual submissions warranted rectification.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that:
- The list of 1745 candidates only indicated those who secured the minimum qualifying marks, not those shortlisted for the proficiency test.
- The final shortlisting of 1075 candidates was made category-wise, and the petitioners did not meet the prescribed cut-off marks.
- Consequently, the 2021 order, passed on both counsels’ mistaken assumption that petitioners were “successful candidates,” was an error apparent on record.
The Court observed:
“The reliance placed upon the list of 1745 candidates, treating it as the list of successful candidates, was an error on the face of the record.”
Since no vested right had accrued to the petitioners, and the selection process had been completed fairly, the Court exercised its review powers to correct the record.
Conclusion
The Patna High Court allowed the review petition filed by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission and modified its earlier order dated 1 September 2021. It held that the writ petitioners were not entitled to appear in the interview, as they had failed to secure the category-wise cut-off marks required for shortlisting.
Justice Anil Kumar Sinha concluded:
“Refusal to review an order based on a non-existent fact would amount to grave miscarriage of justice. The doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit demands that no one should suffer due to a court’s mistake.”
No order as to costs was made.
Implications
This judgment reaffirms the limited yet essential role of review jurisdiction—to correct self-evident errors without reopening concluded issues. It underscores that review is not a re-hearing but a mechanism to rectify mistakes resulting from misrepresentation or oversight.
The decision strengthens the accountability of administrative bodies and legal counsel in recruitment litigation and reinforces that courts must not allow procedural errors to confer unintended rights.
FAQs
1. What constitutes an “error apparent on the face of the record”?
An error is “apparent” when it is self-evident and does not require elaborate reasoning to detect. Misstatement of crucial facts, such as incorrect inclusion in a merit list, qualifies as such an error.
2. Can a High Court review its own order?
Yes. Under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, a High Court can review its order if there is discovery of new evidence, a manifest error on record, or any analogous sufficient reason.
3. Does inclusion in a list of candidates with minimum qualifying marks grant a right to interview?
No. Only those who meet the prescribed cut-off and are shortlisted for the next stage acquire a legitimate right to proceed further in the selection process.
