Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Smt. Kamala KumariversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The order dated 19.01.2026 is modified to correct the typographical errors identified by the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Smt. Kamala Kumari, filed a writ petition challenging several typographical errors in the order dated 19.01.2026 issued by the Patna High Court. The errors included misnaming the school as "Girls Middle School" instead of "Girls Primary School", incorrectly stating "District Board Teacher" instead of "District Cadre Teacher", and misidentifying respondent No. 2 as respondent No. 5. The petitioner sought correction of these mistakes to reflect the true parties and facts. The Court examined the petition and found no substantive dispute, only clerical inaccuracies that required rectification. Accordingly, the Court modified the order to read the correct school name, correct the teacher designation, and correctly identify respondent No. 2, thereby disposing of the petition.

Subjects

  • typographical error
  • order correction
  • civil writ jurisdiction
  • education department

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12973 of 2025
                 ======================================================
                 Smt. Kamala Kumari W/o Narendra Kumar Singh Resident of Village-
                 Khajuhatti, P.S.-Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj, Bihar.

                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
                 Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
           2.    Director Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
           3.    District Education Officer, District-Gopalganj.
           4.    The Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj
           5.    Neetu Kumari W/o Unknown, R/o Village-Semra, P.S.-Mashrakh, District-
                 Saran Chapra.
           6.    District Programme Officer, Gopalganj.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr. Braj Kishore Singh Chouhan, Adv.
                 For the Respondent/s   :      Mr. Standing Counsel (26)
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   02-02-2026                   The matter is placed under the heading “To Be

                   Mentioned” on a motion made by learned Advocate for the

                   petitioner.

                                 2. This Court is apprised that on account of

                   inadvertence, in paragraph no. 2 of the order dated 19.01.2026,

                   in place of Girls Primary School, Khajuhatti, it has been

                   wrongly mentioned as Girls Middle School, Khajuhatti.

                                 3. Let the name of the school be read as Girls Primary

                   School, Khajuhatti in paragraph no. 2 of the order dated

                   19.01.2026.
            Patna High Court CWJC No.12973 of 2025(4) dt.02-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                                  4. It is further submitted that in paragraph no. 3 of the

                      order dated 19.01.2026, in place of District Cadre Teacher, it has

                      been wrongly mentioned as District Board Teacher. The same is

                      also required to be modified.

                                  5. Let the District Board Teacher be read as District

                      Cadre Teacher in paragraph no. 3 of the order dated 19.01.2026.

                                  6. It has further been pointed out that the final order is

                      required to be passed by respondent no. 2. However, due to

                      typographical mistake, it has been mentioned as respondent no.

                      5, in place of respondent no. 2.

                                  7. Accordingly, the respondent no. 5 be also read as

                      respondent no. 2.

                                  8. In view of the submissions advanced, the order

                      dated 19.01.2026 stands modified to the extent indicated

                      hereinabove.

                                  9. Learned Advocate for the State is present.



                                                 (Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-

U


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.