2025:JHHC:37491 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 79 of 2024 1. Achintya Mahato, aged about 32 years, S/o Haripada Mahato, resident of Village- Ramaidih, P.O.- Bhutam, P.S.- Puncha, District- Purulia (West Bengal) 2. Biswanath Singh, aged about 34 years, S/o Sudhir Kumar Singh, resident of Village- Hullung, P.O.- Kulabahal, P.S.- Hura, District- Purulia (West Bengal) … … Petitioners/Petitioners Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi 2. Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.Ο.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi 3. Director, Directorate of Secondary Education, Department of School Education & Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi 4. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary, having its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Namkum, District - Ranchi 5. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. - Namkum, District- Ranchi … … Opp. Parties/Respondents 6. Bibek Mahato, aged about 34 years, S/o Sudhakar Mahato, Resident of Village – Dayadih, P.O.- Gopalnagar, P.S.- Manbazar, District – Purulia (West Bengal). … … Performa Opp. Party/Petitioner --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Gyandev Raj, Advocate For the Opp. Parties- JSSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate : Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV --- 07/12.12.2025 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This review petition has been filed for review of order dated 21.02.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5166 of 2023 whereby the writ petition filed by three writ petitioners was dismissed. 2025:JHHC:37491 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that one miscellaneous application bearing Diary No. 30737 of 2023 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court arising out of Civil Appeal No. 4043 of 2022 with other matters including Contempt Petition (C) No. 612 of 2022. The learned counsel has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while disposing off the said miscellaneous applications vide order dated 22.03.2024, has observed that for the remaining vacancies, the applicants may seek remedy before the High Court in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed, therefore, a petition seeking review has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has opposed the prayer of the petitioners and has submitted that the writ petition was dismissed by citing reasons and the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to other cases cannot be a reason to review the same and revive the writ petition. He has also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the appellants may seek remedy before the High Court in accordance with law, if so advised provided they have the requisite merit and they are otherwise eligible to seek relief before the High Court. He submits that since the instant writ petition was dismissed on merit, there is no occasion to review the order. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties also submits that the writ petition was filed by three petitioners and the present review petition has been filed by only two of the writ petitioners. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5166 of 2023 was dismissed on 21.02.2024 after considering the merits of the matter and various aspects of the case of respective parties were taken into consideration including the judgement passed in Civil Appeal No. 4038 of 2022 (paragraph 26.3) and also order dated 15.12.2022 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 612 of 2022. 2025:JHHC:37491 3 8. The Miscellaneous Application bearing no. 30737 of 2023 was withdrawn with liberty to seek remedy before the High Court in accordance with law. The order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to by the learned counsel for the review petitioners has been passed in other miscellaneous applications. It reveals that the miscellaneous applications were filed by those persons who had not filed any writ petition before the High Court and were not parties in any of the litigations which culminated in the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the miscellaneous applications were not maintainable and they were dismissed. A reference was also made to earlier order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23.02.2023 passed in Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 5500 of 2024 in Contempt Petition No. 612 of 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 4044 of 2022 which was also disposed off on the ground of maintainability. However, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, during the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice that there were approximately 3833 vacancies of the post of Trained Graduate Teachers and that several writ petitions were pending before the High Court in connection with those vacancies. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the order dated 02.08.2022 had already attained finality insofar as the recruitment process was concerned. Insofar as vacant posts remaining, liberty was reserved to the applicants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to seek appropriate remedies before the High Court in accordance with law, if so advised, provided they had requisite merit and were otherwise eligible to seek relief before the High Court. The order passed by this court in writ petition also referred to judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4038 of 2022 (paragraph 26.3) in connection with which no miscellaneous application was subject matter of consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the order cited by the learned counsel for the review petitioners. 9. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that no ground for review has been made out by referring to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was passed in different 2025:JHHC:37491 4 cases. It is also important to note that the present writ petition was dismissed on merits prior to the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to other persons. There is no order of the Hon’ble supreme court to reopen the dismissed writ petition involved in this case. Moreover, the writ order having been passed on merits, no ground for review has been made out by referring the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. No error in the writ order calling for its review has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the review petitioners. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this review petition is dismissed. 11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order: 12.12.2025 Pankaj Date of Uploading: 03.01.2026