← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/12973/2025disposed

Smt. Kamala Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-19Mr. Justice Harish Kumar2 pages

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 VillageKhajuhatti, 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, DistrictSaran 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 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