AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 158 wordsI.A. No.01/21 & 02/21 :
The present applications have been filed seeking rectification of the typographical error crept in the interim order dated 22.03.2021 passed by this
Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4213/2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inadvertently while arguing the case the post on which the petitioner is working, has wrongly been
mentioned as “Head Constable†when the order was being dictated whereas the petitioner is working on the post of “Constableâ€. Hence, in
second line of para 2 at page 1 of the order dated 22.03.2021, the post of petitioner has wrongly been inscribed as “Head Constable†in place of
“Constableâ€.
For the reasons stated, both the applications are allowed.
The order dated 22.03.2021 passed by this Court is corrected/amended, as prayed. Accordingly, the post (Head Constable) of petitioner, inscribed
in second line of para 2 at page 1 of the order dated 22.03.2021, stands substituted by “Constableâ€.