IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3732 of 2009 2 27.1.2010 Ram Narayan Choudhary and others ..... Petitioners VERSUS Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others ... Respondents AND Sunil Kumar Verma and others ..... Petitioners VERSUS Bhagalpur Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank (now known as Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank) and others .... Respondents ------ This modification application has been filed on behalf of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank which was respondent in the two writ petitions bearing CWJC No.9064 and 11176 of 2001, which were allowed by judgment and order dated 19.2.2009, contained in Annexure-1. Three prayers have been advanced on behalf of the petitioner Bank. Firstly, it was submitted that in the last paragraph at page 8 of the order contained in Annexure-1, in the opening line, six petitioners are said to have been promoted to O.S.II in the year 2004 whereas according to learned counsel for the Bank, the earlier discussions clearly reveal that eight persons had already been so promoted. Hence, the prayer to amend the word ‘six” and substitute it with ‘eight’ is allowed. 2 The second prayer is to clarify that there were only 14 respondents in CWJC No.9064 of 2001 and their names have correctly been typed in the order (Annexure-1) but the numbering given to the respondents suffers from inadvertent typographical error inasmuch as against respondent no.1, the numbers shown are 1 and 2. Similarly, against respondent no.4, Mr Sujit, the numbers shown are 5 and 6. Let the said error be treated to have been corrected so that the Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, its Board of Directors and its Chairman are treated as respondents 1,2, 3, Mr Sujit as respondent no.4, Mr Samir Kumar as respondent no.5 and subsequent respondents as respondents no.6 to 14 respectively. The third prayer made by learned counsel for the Bank is to clarify whether the Bank is required to consider the case of Sanjay Kumar Pandey, petitioner no.10 and Samuel Besra, petitioner no.2 in CWJC No.9064 of 2001, for promotion when, as per Annexure- A/2 enclosed to this application, no person junior to them was promoted earlier so as to require consideration of their cases for notional promotion from an earlier date. 3 It will not be proper for this Court to enter into this issue and re-examine a fact when the order in question (Annexure-1) has already been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This application for modification is disposed of. (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) sk