IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5684 of 2002 PRABHUNATH TIWARI & ORS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- 4 14.09.2009 The writ application has been listed under the heading “To be mentioned” at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that in paragraph 2 of the order dated 11.08.2009, the year has wrongly been mentioned as “199” whereas it should be “1999”. He also points out that at 3rd page in direction no.1, petitioner has been directed to file a representation before respondent no.4, District Superintendent of Education, Saran. He submits that the competent authority is the District Magistrate, Saran and therefore, direction no.1 may be modified for filing the representation before respondent no.3, District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra. Accordingly, order dated 11.08.2009 is modified to the extent that the year „199‟ in second paragraph of the order be read as „1999‟ and in direction no.1, the sentence “petitioners must file a fresh copy of representation (annexed as Annexure-4 with the writ - 2 - application) before respondent no.4, the District Superintendent of Education, Saran” be read as “petitioners must file a fresh copy of representation (annexed as Annexure-4 with the writ application) before respondent no.3, the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra”. Accordingly, time limit for filing representation, as directed by order dated 11.08.2009, is extended by one month from today. B.T (J.N. Singh, J.)