Monu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.839 of 2025
     ======================================================
1.    Monu Kumar S/o Sri Sanjay Prasad, R/o Village-Silauta, P.S.-Chand,
     District-Kaimur (Bhabhua).
2.   Pravin Kumar, S/o Ajay Prasad, R/o Village-Panchawati Nagar Rajgir, P.S.-
     Rajgir, District-Nalanda.
3.   Kumar Sudhanshu Ray, S/o Medni Prasad, R/o Village-Bavhari, P.S.-
     Akbarpur, District-Nawada.
4.   Amitabh Kumar, S/o Munil Paswan, R/o Village-Gauri, P.O.-Raisa, P.S.-
     Chand, District-Nalanda.
5.   Rohit Kumar, S/o Suraj Deo Chaudhary, R/o Village-Bhandari P.S.O. Rahui,
     District-Nalanda.
6.   Jatashankar Kumar, S/o Yogendra Prasad, R/o Village-Munger, P.S.-Mork,
     District-Khagaria.
7.   Samarjeet S/o Sri Ramdeo Thakur, R/o Village-Maner, P.S.-Morkahi,
     District-Khagaria.
8.   Riya Kumari, D/o Prabesh Kumar Singh, R/o Village-Chapra, P.S.-Barahat,
     District-Banka.
9.   Soni Kumari, W/o Rajeev Singh, R/o Village-Brijpur, P.S.-Noorsarai,
     District-Nalanda.
                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                       Versus

1.   The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary Human Resources
     Department, New Secretariat, Patna.
2.   The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, New Secretariat.
3.   The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Nehru Path (Baily Road),
     Patna-01.
4.   The Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission, Nehru Path
     (Baily Road), Patna-01.
5.   The Additional Director General of Police, Economic Offence Unit, Bihar
     Rajbansi Nagar, Patna.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :     Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.
                                  Miss Shivani Mishra, Adv.
                                  Mrs. Pragati Singh, Adv.
Patna High Court CWJC No.839 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
                                           2/21




                                        Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv.
                                        Miss. Vidhi Shree, Adv.
       For the State            :       Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC-4
       For the BPSC             :       Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv.
       For the EOU              :       Mr. Vishwanath Prasad Sinha, Sr. Adv.
                                        Mr. Vijay Anand, Adv.
       ======================================================
       CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
                            CAV JUDGMENT
         Date : 31-03-2026

                    Heard the parties.

                    The petitioners in the present writ application have

       prayed for following reliefs:

                                    “i. Respondent no.03 be directed to

                        delete/expunge the star mark given against the names

                        of petitioners and further wrongly observed that their

                        result shall be given effect after disposal of economic

                        offence PS Case No.6/2024.

                                    ii. Writ of Mandamus be issued against the

                        respondents to take further action in respect of their

                        joining on the post of primary teacher in government

                        elementary schools and further to grant consequential

                        benefits to the petitioners.”

                    2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

       petitioners, being fully qualified and eligible candidates, had

       applied pursuant to Advertisement No. 22/2024 dated 07.02.2024

       issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission for appointment of

       teachers in Elementary and Middle Schools. It is urged that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.839 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
                                           3/21




       petitioners participated in the selection process and appeared in the

       written examination conducted by the Commission. Although an

       Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 06/2024 came to be instituted

       wherein the petitioners were named, it is pointed out that the

       petitioners were granted bail by the learned ACJM, Patna on

       02.04.2024, there being no substantive evidence indicating any

       wrongdoing on their part.

                    3. It is the specific case of the petitioners that thereafter

       they were issued admit cards and duly appeared in the

       examinations held on 19.07.2024 and 20.07.2024. Learned counsel

       submits that the petitioners performed meritoriously and secured

       marks above the prescribed cut-off, which fact stands admitted

       from the OMR answer sheets issued by the respondent authorities

       themselves. It is further contended that the Commission, having

       conducted the examination afresh, declared the results wherein the

       petitioners were shown as successful candidates.

                    However, learned counsel submits that in a wholly

       arbitrary manner and with a biased approach, the respondent

       Commission has affixed a “star mark” against the names of the

       petitioners and withheld the effect of their result under the pretext

       of pendency of the aforesaid criminal case. It is argued that such

       an action is dehors the statutory provisions and amounts to placing
Patna High Court CWJC No.839 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
                                           4/21




       the result in a sealed cover without any authority of law. According

       to learned counsel, the pendency of a criminal case, particularly

       one unconnected with the examination process, cannot be a valid

       ground to deny or defer appointment to a candidate who has

       otherwise succeeded on merit.

                    4. It is further submitted that the adverse remark made

       in the result dated 15.11.2024 is per se illegal, arbitrary, and

       unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel emphasizes that

       criminal proceedings, by their very nature, take considerable time

       to conclude, and if such a ground is permitted to stall

       appointments, it would lead to grave injustice and irreparable harm

       to deserving candidates. The petitioners, having successfully

       cleared the examination on their own merit, cannot be made to

       suffer on account of an unproven allegation.

                    5. Learned counsel also contends that the action of the

       respondents in withholding the appointment of the petitioners

       amounts to violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under

       Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, as similarly

       situated candidates have not been subjected to such discriminatory

       treatment. It is thus submitted that the impugned action reflects

       malafide intent and is liable to be set aside.
Patna High Court CWJC No.839 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
                                           5/21




                    6. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

       Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, namely the Bihar Public Service

       Commission, submits at the outset that the instant writ petition is

       misconceived and has been filed seeking, inter alia, a direction for

       expunging the “star mark” indicated against the names of the

       petitioners in the result dated 15.11.2024 and for issuance of

       appointment letters on the basis of their purported success in the

       examination. It is contended that the said marking merely reflects

       an administrative decision to keep the result of certain candidates

       in abeyance owing to their implication in Economic Offences P.S.

       Case No. 06/2024, and does not, in itself, amount to any final

       denial of appointment.

                    7. Learned counsel further submits that the Commission

       is only a recommending body and functions strictly in accordance

       with the requisitions received from the State Government and the

       applicable rules and regulations. It is submitted that pursuant to

       requisition       received       from         the   Education   Department,

       Advertisement No. 22/2024 dated 07.02.2024 was issued for large-

       scale appointment of school teachers. The petitioners, like other

       candidates, participated in the selection process, which culminated

       in a re-examination (TRE-3.0) conducted between 19.07.2024 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.839 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
                                           6/21




       22.07.2024 following the cancellation of the earlier examination

       due to question paper leakage.

                    8. It is the stand of the respondents that during the

       course of investigation into the said leakage, the Economic

       Offences Unit, Bihar, informed the Commission regarding

       registration of an FIR and involvement of several candidates,

       including the present petitioners. Learned counsel points out that

       as per the communication received, a substantial number of

       accused persons were found to be candidates of the re-

       examination. In such circumstances, the Commission, acting with

       due caution, decided to seek legal opinion regarding the treatment

       of such candidates in the selection process.

                    9. Learned counsel submits that in its meeting dated

       11.11.2024, the Commission resolved to act upon the advice of the

       competent authorities, and accordingly sought opinion from the

       Law Department and thereafter from the General Administrative

       Department. It is contended that the General Administrative

       Department, vide its letter dated 17.01.2025, advised that in cases

       where a candidate is otherwise eligible but is facing criminal

       proceedings and has been charge-sheeted, the result should be kept

       in a sealed cover so that the overall selection process is not

       impeded.
Patna High Court CWJC No.839 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
                                           7/21




                    In light of the aforesaid legal opinion, learned counsel

       submits that the Commission adopted a uniform and non-

       discriminatory approach by placing the results of such candidates,

       including the petitioners, in a sealed cover, which is denoted by the

       “star mark” in the result sheet. It is emphasized that this action has

       been taken in good faith and strictly in compliance with the

       directions of the competent Government Department, and not out

       of any arbitrariness or malafide intent.

                    10. It is further submitted that the recommendation of

       other successful candidates has already been forwarded to the

       concerned department, and the selection process stands completed.

       However, in respect of candidates implicated in the said criminal

       case, the publication and effect of their results have been deferred

       till the conclusion of the proceedings, in order to maintain the

       integrity of the recruitment process. Learned counsel thus contends

       that the Commission has acted within the bounds of law and in

       adherence to the applicable rules and governmental instructions. It

       is, therefore, urged that the writ petition, being devoid of merit and

       substance, is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

                    11. In rejoinder to the counter affidavit, learned counsel

       for the petitioners submits that their appointment has been unjustly

       withheld solely on account of their being named in an FIR lodged
Patna High Court CWJC No.839 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
                                           8/21




       by the Economic Offence Unit, Bihar, which is wholly unrelated to

       their performance in the selection process. Reliance is placed upon

       the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joginder Singh

       vs. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 10126 of 2014) to contend

       that appointment of the candidates cannot be withheld and they

       cannot be debarred from their appointments on the ground of

       pendency of criminal case.

                    12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the

       Economic Offence Unit, Bihar, vehemently opposes the writ

       petition and submits that the petitioners do not deserve any relief

       in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is contended

       at the outset that all the nine petitioners are named accused in

       Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 06 of 2024, and their identities

       have been specifically recorded in the FIR with distinct accused

       numbers. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners were

       not only named in the FIR but were also arrested during the course

       of investigation and remanded to judicial custody.

                    It is further submitted that upon completion of

       investigation, sufficient incriminating materials were found against

       the petitioners, and accordingly, they have been charge-sheeted

       under Charge Sheet No. 05 of 2025 dated 18.02.2025. Learned

       counsel points out that the offences alleged are serious in nature,
Patna High Court CWJC No.839 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
                                           9/21




       involving Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian

       Penal Code, along with provisions of the Bihar Conduct of

       Examinations Act, 1981, and Section 66 of the Information

       Technology Act. It is contended that the case pertains to a large-

       scale organized conspiracy involving leakage of the question paper

       of the Bihar Public Service Commission Teacher Recruitment

       Examination (TRE-3), thereby compromising the sanctity of a

       public recruitment process.

                    13. Learned counsel elaborates that the investigation

       has revealed the existence of an inter-state organized syndicate

       engaged in leaking examination papers and providing undue

       advantage to candidates in exchange for substantial illegal

       gratification. It is submitted that acting upon credible intelligence,

       the investigating agency conducted raids at multiple locations,

       leading to recovery of leaked question papers, documents, and

       other incriminating materials. Several accused persons were

       apprehended, and it was found that hundreds of candidates were

       being tutored with the leaked question papers and answers in

       various locations, including hotels and banquet halls.

                    14. It is further submitted that during investigation, key

       accused persons made disclosures regarding the modus operandi of

       the syndicate, including transportation of candidates, distribution
Patna High Court CWJC No.839 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
                                          10/21




       of question papers, and organized coaching sessions prior to the

       examination. The seized question papers were subsequently

       matched with the actual examination papers conducted on

       15.03.2024 and were found to be identical, thereby conclusively

       establishing the occurrence of the leak.

                    Learned counsel submits that in total, a large number of

       FIR-named accused persons were apprehended, many of whom

       were caught red-handed while participating in the illegal activities

       connected with the paper leak. The present petitioners, being part

       of the said group of candidates, were also implicated during the

       course of investigation and have been charge-sheeted based on

       evidence collected by the agency. In light of the aforesaid facts,

       learned counsel contends that the involvement of the petitioners in

       a serious criminal conspiracy relating to examination malpractice

       disentitles them from claiming any equitable relief from this

       Hon’ble Court. It is thus submitted that the writ petition, being

       devoid of merit and seeking to overlook grave allegations

       supported by investigation, is liable to be dismissed.

                    15. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits

       that the State does not have a role to play in this matter for the

       reason      that    the    respondent         State   only   acts   upon   the

       recommendation made by BPSC and since in this case, the results
Patna High Court CWJC No.839 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
                                          11/21




       of the petitioners and recommendation for their appointment has

       not been received, therefore the respondent State cannot be held

       responsible in any manner.

                                 ISSUES IN QUESTION:

                    (i). Whether the action of the respondent authorities

       in invoking the doctrine of “sealed cover” to withhold the

       result and consequential appointment of the petitioners is

       legally sustainable, particularly in the absence of any formal

       framing of charges on or before the date of the result by a

       competent court in the criminal proceedings arising out of

       Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 06/2024.

                    (ii). Whether the mere pendency of a criminal case,

       without adjudication of guilt and in a matter not directly

       impinging upon the petitioners’ performance in the selection

       process, can justify denial or deferment of appointment to

       candidates who have otherwise qualified on merit in a public

       recruitment examination.

                                         FINDINGS:

                    Issue (i): Whether the action of the respondent

       authorities in invoking the doctrine of “sealed cover” to

       withhold the result and consequential appointment of the

       petitioners is legally sustainable, particularly in the absence of
Patna High Court CWJC No.839 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
                                          12/21




       any formal framing of charges on or before the date of the result

       by a competent court in the criminal proceedings arising out of

       Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 06/2024?

                    While examining the first issue, this Court is required to

       consider the legality of the action of the respondent authorities in

       resorting to the “sealed cover” procedure for withholding the result

       and consequential appointment of the petitioners.

                    At the outset, it is well-settled that the sealed cover

       procedure is not to be applied in a routine or mechanical manner.

       Its invocation is circumscribed by specific legal conditions,

       particularly in cases where disciplinary or criminal proceedings are

       said to be pending against a candidate or employee. The governing

       principle in this regard stands crystallized by the Hon’ble Supreme

       Court in Union of India & Others vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Others,

       (1991) 4 SCC 109, relevant paragraphs of which is quoted herein:

                    “(1) It is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary

       proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued

       to the employee that it can be said that the departmental

       proceedings/criminal          prosecution     is   initiated   against   the

       employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only

       after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. To deny promotion

       the disciplinary/criminal proceedings must be at the relevant time
Patna High Court CWJC No.839 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
                                          13/21




       pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already

       been issued to the employee. The pendency of preliminary

       investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the

       authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. If the allegations

       are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them,

       ordinarily it should not take much time to collect the relevant

       evidence and finalise the charges. Further, if the charges are that

       serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee

       under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a

       resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not

       without a remedy. This finding of the Full Bench of the Tribunal is

       therefore, acceptable. (Paras 16 and 17)”

                                                      [Emphasis Supplied]

                     It has been authoritatively held that such a procedure

       can be resorted to only when a charge memo in a departmental

       proceeding or a charge sheet in a criminal prosecution has been

       formally issued. In other words, mere pendency of an inquiry or

       registration of an FIR does not justify withholding of benefits

       under the sealed cover mechanism.

                    Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the

       present case, it becomes evident that the respondents have

       primarily relied upon the pendency of Economic Offence P.S. Case
Patna High Court CWJC No.839 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
                                          14/21




       No. 06/2024 and the inclusion of the petitioners’ names in the said

       case to justify their action. However, the material on record does

       not disclose that, as on the relevant date 15.11.2024 when the

       result was published and the impugned decision was taken, any

       charge had been formally framed by a competent criminal court

       against the petitioners. In fact the admitted position is that the

       charge sheet was framed subsequently on 18.02.2025.

                    The distinction between mere implication in an FIR or

       investigation on the one hand, and the formal initiation of

       prosecution        through       filing       of   a   charge   sheet   and

       cognizance/framing of charge by a court on the other, is not merely

       procedural but goes to the root of the matter. The doctrine of

       sealed cover is premised on the existence of a stage where the

       allegations have crystallized into formal charges warranting

       adjudication. In the absence of such a stage, resorting to the said

       doctrine would amount to penalizing a candidate on the basis of

       untested allegations.

                    In the present case, the action of the respondent

       Commission appears to have been guided by a general

       administrative instruction and a broad apprehension arising out of

       the alleged examination irregularities. While the objective of

       maintaining the integrity of the recruitment process cannot be
Patna High Court CWJC No.839 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
                                          15/21




       faulted, such objective must be pursued within the confines of

       established legal principles. The sealed cover procedure, being an

       exception to the normal rule of declaration of results and grant of

       consequential benefits, must be applied strictly and not on the

       basis of mere suspicion or pendency of investigation.

                    This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that in

       the absence of a formally framed charge by a competent court at

       the relevant stage, the invocation of the sealed cover doctrine by

       the respondents cannot be said to be legally sustainable. The

       action, thus, travels beyond the permissible limits laid down by the

       Hon’ble Supreme Court and is liable to be held arbitrary to that

       extent.

                    Issue (ii): Whether the mere pendency of a criminal

       case, without adjudication of guilt and in a matter not directly

       impinging upon the petitioners’ performance in the selection

       process, can justify denial or deferment of appointment to

       candidates who have otherwise qualified on merit in a public

       recruitment examination?

                    While dealing with the second issue, this Court is called

       upon to examine whether the mere pendency of a criminal case,

       without any adjudication of guilt, can be a valid ground to deny or
Patna High Court CWJC No.839 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
                                          16/21




       defer appointment of candidates who have otherwise been found

       successful on merit in a public recruitment process.

                    At the outset, it must be borne in mind that public

       employment is governed not only by statutory rules but also by

       settled constitutional principles, particularly those flowing from

       Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. A candidate who

       has successfully cleared all stages of selection acquires a

       legitimate expectation of appointment, subject, of course, to

       eligibility and suitability as per law. However, such expectation

       cannot be defeated on the basis of mere allegations which have not

       attained any degree of legal finality.

                    The law in this regard is no longer res integra. The

       Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joginder Singh vs. Union Territory of

       Chandigarh (Civil Appeal No. 10126 of 2014) has clearly held

       that the mere involvement of a candidate in a criminal case,

       particularly when there is no concealment and no adjudication of

       guilt, cannot by itself operate as a disqualification for appointment.

       The Court emphasized that denial of appointment in such

       circumstances reflects lack of proper application of mind and

       cannot be sustained in law.

                    Applying the aforesaid principle to the present case, it is

       evident from the writ application that the petitioners have
Patna High Court CWJC No.839 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
                                          17/21




       successfully qualified the examination conducted by the Bihar

       Public Service Commission, even after the re-examination process,

       which has not been controverted in the counter affidavit filed by

       BPSC. The sole basis for withholding their appointment is their

       implication in a criminal case arising out of alleged irregularities

       in the examination process.

                    At the same time, it is not the case of the respondents

       that the petitioners have been found guilty by any competent court.

       The criminal proceedings are still pending adjudication. The

       presumption of innocence, which is a foundational principle of

       criminal jurisprudence, continues to operate in favour of the

       petitioners unless and until proven otherwise. To deny them

       appointment at this stage would amount to inflicting a civil

       consequence on the basis of unproven allegations.

                    This Court is also conscious of the nature of allegations

       and the seriousness of the offence as projected by the Economic

       Offence Unit. However, seriousness of allegations cannot override

       settled legal principles. The employer is certainly entitled to take

       an appropriate view in cases where guilt stands established or

       where the conduct of the candidate is demonstrably such as to

       render him unsuitable for public employment. But such a
Patna High Court CWJC No.839 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
                                          18/21




       conclusion must be based on objective material of a conclusive

       nature, and not on mere pendency of proceedings.

                    In the present case, the action of the respondents reflects

       a blanket approach, whereby all candidates named in the FIR have

       been treated alike without any individualized assessment of their

       role or the stage of the criminal proceedings. Such an approach

       runs contrary to the requirement of fairness and reasonableness in

       public employment.

                    In view of the above, this Court is of the considered

       opinion that mere pendency of a criminal case, without any finding

       of guilt and without any material demonstrating disqualification in

       terms of applicable rules, cannot justify the denial or indefinite

       deferment of appointment of the petitioners. The impugned action,

       therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

                    16. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this

       Court finds that the action of the respondent authorities in

       invoking the doctrine of sealed cover cannot be sustained in law. It

       is an admitted position that the list of selected candidates was

       published on 15.11.2024, the present writ petition was instituted

       on 12.12.2024, whereas the charge sheet in the criminal case came

       to be filed subsequently on 18.02.2025. Thus, on the relevant date

       when the impugned action was taken and the rights of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.839 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
                                          19/21




       petitioners were affected, there was no charge sheet in existence so

       as to justify recourse to the “sealed cover procedure”. As already

       held, the said doctrine can be pressed into service only upon

       formal initiation of prosecution, and not at a stage when the matter

       is merely under investigation. Consequently, the withholding of

       the result and consequential benefits of the petitioners on such

       basis is held to be arbitrary and legally untenable.

                    17. In light of the findings recorded hereinabove, the

       writ petition stands allowed. However, this Court considers it

       necessary to issue specific directions so as to remove any

       ambiguity in implementation. During the course of oral

       submissions, learned counsel appearing for the Commission raised

       a contention that it is not conclusively established on record

       whether the petitioners have been finally declared successful in the

       examination. At the same time, this Court notes that no such

       specific denial has been taken in the counter affidavit, despite

       categorical assertions made by the petitioners regarding their

       success and securing of marks above the cut-off. In such

       circumstances, the said contention cannot be accepted at face

       value, but at the same time requires verification at the end of the

       Commission.
Patna High Court CWJC No.839 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
                                          20/21




                    18. Accordingly, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, namely the

       Bihar Public Service Commission, are directed to undertake a

       limited exercise of verification of the records to ascertain whether

       the petitioners have, in fact, successfully qualified the examination

       in accordance with the applicable criteria and have secured marks

       above the prescribed cut-off. In the event the petitioners are found

       to be successful, the Commission shall, without any further delay,

       declare their results and forward the requisite recommendation in

       favour of the petitioners to the concerned State authorities. This

       entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks

       from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

                    19. Upon receipt of such recommendation, the State

       respondents shall take consequential steps for issuance of

       appointment letters to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible,

       preferably within a further period of eight weeks. It is clarified that

       the State shall be at liberty to incorporate an appropriate

       stipulation in the appointment orders to the effect that such

       appointments shall be subject to the final outcome of the pending

       criminal proceedings arising out of Economic Offence P.S. Case

       No. 06/2024.
             Patna High Court CWJC No.839 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
                                                       21/21




                                 20. The writ petition, therefore, is allowed in the

                    aforesaid terms. All pending I.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of.

                    There shall be no order as to costs.


                                                           (Alok Kumar Sinha, J)

Prakash Narayan
AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                23.03.2026
Uploading Date          31.03.2026
Transmission Date       NA