2025:JHHC:14147 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 36 of 2022 1. Arun Kumar Raut, S/O Dharani Raut, aged about 50 years, R/O- Shri Grampara, P.O+ P.S- Dumka, Dist- Dumka 2. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, S/O Sukhdeo Prasad Sah, aged about 55 years, R/O- P.O+P.S Bousi, Dist- Banka (Bihar) 3. Prabhakar Prasad Singh, S/O- Mani Prasad Singh, Aged about 59 years, R/O- Ranhan, P.O+P.S- Mahadeo Simaria, Dist- Jamui (Bihar) 4. Ashish Kumar Gane, S/O Late Nawaridhar Gane, Aged about 54 years, R/O- Kendua, P.O- Dado, P.S - Ramgarh, Dist- Dumka … … Petitioners/ Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary-cum-commissioner, Department of Health and Family welfare, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. + P.S. – Doranda Ranchi 2. The Joint Secretary to the Government, Department of Health and Family welfare, Government of Jharkhand, At Nepal House, P.O & P.S- Doranda, Dist- Ranchi 3. The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Health and Family welfare, Government of Jharkhand, At Nepal House, P.O & P.S- Doranda, Dist- Ranchi 4. The Commissioner Santhal Pargana Division, P.O & P.S Dumka, Dist.- Dumka 5. The Deputy Commissioner, At P.O & P.S Dumka, Dist.- Dumka 6. The Civil Surgeon-cum Chief Medical Officer, At P.O & P.S Dumka, Dist.- Dumka 7. The In-Charge Medical Officer Primary Health Centre, At Jarmundi, P.O & P.S & Dist- Dumka 8. The In-Charge Medical Officer Primary Health Centre, At Masalia, P.O & P.S & Dist- Dumka 9. Prem Kumar Sah, S/o Sukhdeo Prasad Sah, R/o Karhalbil, P.O, P.S &, District Dumka 10. Gopal Kumar Mandal, S/o Suresh Chandra Mandal, R/o & PO- Bariran Bahiyar, PS-Ramgarh, Dist-Bokaro 11. Bhola Prasad Singh, s/o Bibekanandan Singh, R/o-Ranhan, P.O. & P.S. Mahadeo Simaria, Dist- Jamui (Bihar) … … Opp. Parties/Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate --- 09/21.03.2025 This petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 02.05.2022 passed in W.P.(S). No.736 of 2010. 2025:JHHC:14147 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in paragraph 41 of the judgement under review, it has been recorded that the petitioners were not party in the case of Sunita kumari and others which was CWJC No.10554 of 1998. The learned counsel submits that a review petition has been filed stating that the fact that the petitioners were parties in the aforesaid earlier writ petition could not be brought on record of the writ petition being W.P.(S). No.736 of 2010 and this Court could not be apprised of this peculiar fact. 3. The further ground is that the foundational evidence that the petitioners were party in CWJC No.10554 of 1998 is evident from the certified copy of the writ petition being CWJC No.10554 of 1998 which was made available only after conclusion of the final argument in W.P.(S) No.736 of 2010. 4. The learned counsel has fairly submitted on query by this Court that the fact that the petitioners were parties in earlier writ petition being CWJC No.10554 of 1998 was also not mentioned in writ petition W.P.(S). No.736 of 2010 in paragraph 36 of the writ petition. Rather it was mentioned that the petitioners had not moved this Court earlier for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition. The learned counsel submits that such statement was also an error of fact and the correct fact is that the petitioners had moved earlier in writ petition being CWJC No.10554 of 1998. The learned counsel has also submitted that the order passed in CWJC No.10554 of 1998 was annexed along with writ petition being W.P.(S). No.736 of 2010 but in the order, the names of the petitioners were not mentioned but it was titled as M/s. Sunita Kumari and others. 5. The grounds taken in the civil review are quoted as under: “i. For that as the matter was heard this important fact could not be brought on record and the Hon’ble Court could not be appraised regarding this peculiar fact. ii. For that the foundational evidence i.e. the copy of the certified copy of writ petition being CWJC 10554/1998 was made available only after conclusion of final argument. 2025:JHHC:14147 3 iii. For that the statement with regard to earlier moved by the petitioner was also not made. iv. For that in the annexure – 6 also the party position of all the petitioners was not disclosed." 6. The learned counsel has submitted that the fact that the petitioner moved in writ petition being CWJC No.10554 of 1998 has an important bearing in the matter as the relief has been denied to the petitioners primarily on the ground that the petitioners were not parties in CWJC No.10554 of 1998. He submits that in such circumstances, the order passed in W.P.(S) No.736 of 2010 may be reviewed and appropriate order be passed. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 8. During the course of hearing, it also appears that the certified copy of the writ petition, which has been annexed along with the review petition, was issued to the petitioners on 15.10.2001 as mentioned in page no.33 of this review petition and this fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners in the writ petition being W.P.(S). No.736 of 2010 never disclosed that they had moved earlier in writ petition being CWJC No.10554 of 1998 and a specific statement was made in paragraph 36 of the writ petition as follows “that the petitioners have not moved before this Court earlier for the relief prayed for in the present writ petition”. This statement is sought to be disputed by the petitioners through this review petition and by annexing photocopy of the certified copy of the order passed in the earlier writ petition being CWJC No.10554 of 1998 which appears to have been issued way back in the year 2001 and this fact is also not disputed during the course of hearing. The writ petition under review was filed in the year 2010 by suppressing material fact before this Court. 10. This Court finds that the aforesaid statement in paragraph 36 of the writ petition itself suffers from suppression of fact and there can 2025:JHHC:14147 4 be no reason that the petitioners would not know that they have moved this Court earlier in CWJC No.10554 of 1998. It cannot be said that the review has been filed on account of discovery of new facts, or that it suffers from any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of the writ petition, or that there is any sufficient cause to review the impugned order, once it is found that the writ petition suffered from suppression of material facts. Paragraph 7 of the impugned order under review also reveals that during the writ court proceedings, even upon a query of this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that none of the present petitioners were parties in the said writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 10554 of 1998. Paragraph 7 of the order under review is quoted as under: - “7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that Sunita Kumari and Others filed another writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 10554 of 1998. During the course of arguments and upon query by this court, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that none of the present petitioners were party in the said writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 10554 of 1998. However, the said writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 10554 of 1998 was disposed of on 08.02.2000 with a finding that the petitioners of the said case were similar to the ones who were before Hon’ble Apex Court and consequently, a direction as contained in Annexure -6 was issued to the respondents of the said writ petition to give the same preference to the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 10554 of 1998. The learned counsel submits that in compliance of order dated 08.02.2000 passed in the case of Sunita Kumari and Others (Supra), in which the petitioners were not party, the State of Jharkhand took a decision that remaining 11 persons will be appointed in similar manner as that of Arun Kumar Rout and others”. 11. Further, this Court also finds that the impugned order under review has considered various aspects of the matter while dismissing the writ petition of writ petitioner nos.1, 3, 6 and 7 after considering the materials placed on record, which on facts are not the subject 2025:JHHC:14147 5 matter/ground for review. This is over and above the fact that the writ petition suffered from aforesaid material suppression/mis-statement not only in the writ petition but also during arguments and it is not the case of the petitioners that there has been any error in recording the submissions of the learned counsel. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, the grounds taken by the four petitioners (writ petitioner nos. 1,3,6 and 7) seeking review of the judgment passed in W.P.(S) No.736 of 2010 are not good grounds on which the order of the writ petition can be reviewed. 13. Accordingly, this civil review petition is hereby dismissed. 14. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav