Rajbllam Kumar v. The State Of Bihar Through The Additional Chief Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1909 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10348 of 2021 ====================================================== Rajbllam Kumar, aged about 25 years, Son of Ramdhni Prasad, Resident of Village - Garura, P.O. - Garura, P.S. - Roh, District - Nawada. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary Home Police Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya. 3.

The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Karmik), Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Abhiyan), Special Work Force, Bihar, Patna.

5.

The Secretary, Bihar Police Sub-Ordinate Services Commission, Bihar, Patna.

6.

The Special Work Officer, Bihar Police Sub-Ordinate Services Commission, Bihar, Patna.

7.

The Superintendent of Police, Nawada.

8.

The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nawada.

9.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Home), I.G. Office, Magadh Range, Gaya.

10.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rakshit), Police Quarter, Nawada. ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Dr. Ranjeet Kumar with Mr. Yogesh Kumar & Mr. Ayush Kumar Advocates For the State :

Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad , SC-8 with Mr. Anil Kumar, AC to SC-8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 28-09-2022 The instant petition has been listed under the heading 'TO BE MENTIONED' on slip filed by the petitioner's counsel, which is kept at Flag-X to the petition.

It is submitted that due to inadvertence the petitioner has been described as 'Assistant Sub Inspector' in the writ

Patna High Court MJC No.1909 of 2022(2) dt.28-09-2022 2/2 petition, whereas it is apparent from the impugned order dated 29-12-2020, as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition, that the petitioner was, in fact the Sub -Inspector of police. The error is apparent on the face of the record, for which, no argument is required and this position is also not disputed by the learned State counsel.

In view thereof, this Court would clarify that the petitioner's description as 'Assistant Sub -Inspector in the order dated 31-08-2022 passed in CWJC No. 10348 of 2021 may be read as Sub Inspector.

The order dated 31-08-2020 is modified to the extent noted above.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) shyambihari/- U