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
8 paragraphs · 287 wordsHanthem Bimol Singh, J
Heard Mr. N. Zequeson, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2, Mr. RS. Reisang, learned senior counsel appearing for the MPSC, Mr. N. Bipin, learned counsel and Mr. O. Ratankumar, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.
The present application had been filed with a prayer for correcting some typographical mistake occurred in paragraphs 6 & 14 of the order dated 18.04.2022, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 991 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 10 of 2022.
The correction sought for by the applicant in the present application is that in paragraph 6 of the said order, instead of the word “petitioners” that occurred in second line, the word “respondents” should be substituted and in paragraph 14 of the said order, instead of the date of order, i.e., “24.03.2021”, it should be read as 24.12.2021. The correction sought for by the present applicant is not objected to by the counsel for the respondents.
After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the mistake which are sought to be corrected is purely typographical mistakes caused through inadvertence.
Accordingly, the prayer for correction is allowed.
In view of the above, it is hereby ordered that instead of the word “petitioners” occurred at paragraph 6 of the order and which is marked by this Court in the original order, it should be read as “respondents” and instead of the date of order, i.e., “24.03.2021”, which occurred at paragraph 14 of the order, it should be read as “24.12.2021”.
With the above order, the present application is disposed of.