IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3073 of 2007 Pralayankari Vikash Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. ----------- 3 23.09.2011 This case has been listed under the heading „To be mentioned‟ at the instance of the petitioner, who would point out that the description of the petitioner in the order dated 9.8.2011 as a Chaukidar is an error, inasmuch as, the petitioner was actually a Night Guard. In the writ application, there is no any documentary proof by way of any appointment letter of the petitioner showing him to have been ever appointed on the post of Night Guard. The petitioner, in his representation, claims that he was working on daily wages as a „Suraksha Prahari‟. In that view of the matter, a daily wager, being described either as a Chaukidar or a Security Guard, would mean the same thing. That being so, this Court would not find any error in the order of this Court dated 9.8.2011 and accordingly, the prayer for amending the order and that too by way of bringing it under the heading “To be Mentioned” seems to be wholly misconceived. The order dated 9.8.2011 shall remain intact. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)