IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.327 of 2010 4 27.7.2011 Dr Kumkum Kumari, Wife of Dr Arvind Kumar Sharma, aged about 43 years, Resident of Vill- Sultanapur P.S. Mokama Distt- Patna at present working as Sr. lecturer in the P.G. Department of Home Science, J.D. Women’s College, Patna and at present residing at Flat no.4/A, Shakuntala Garden, Punaichak, P.,S. Shastrinagar, District Patna … Petitioner/ Appellant/ Review Petitioner VERSUS 1. The Bihar State Universities (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, Patna through its Secretary 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Universities (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, Patna 3. The Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Patna 4. Registrar, Patna University through its Registrar 5. Registrar, Patna University, Patna 6. The Chancellor Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna 7. The State of Bihar, through the A.D.G. Vigilance, Government of Bihar, Patna 8. Mrs Poonam Kumari through the Registrar Patna University, Patna at present C/o Sri Chanakya Kumar Singh, Flat No.107/A, Officers Hostel, Bailey Road, Patna 9. Miss Suheli through the Registrar Patna University, Patna at present C/o Dr. Prabhat, 16 Ashiana Road Police Station Ashiana Nagar, Patna 10. Kumari Rupam through the Registrar Patna Univesity, Patna at present C/o Sri Upendra Prasad, A/210 Officers Hostel Bailey Road, Patna … Respondents/ Respondents/ Opposite Parties -------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the limitation petition seeking condonation of delay of one day in preferring this review application. - 2 - Since the delay is of only one day hence we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on merits also so that if a good case for review is made out notice may be issued in the limitation as well as in review matter. Leaned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in paragraph 4 of the order under review in the last but one line the prayer of the petitioner before the Writ Court has been noted and it suffers from a typographical error inasmuch as her prayer was for a direction to the Commission to place her at serial no.1 of the merit list but due to some error ‘1’ has been typed as ‘8’. Similarly, it was pointed out that in the same paragraph it has been noted that name of the writ petitioner was also recommended by the Commission leading to her appointment and she is working as a lecturer in Home Science in J.D. Women’s College at Patna which is under Magadh University. It was pointed out that the petitioner, on the recommendation of the Commission, is working as lecturer in Home Science in college in question but not on the basis of advertisement no.2/96 which is relevant for the present case but - 3 - pursuant to advertisement no.2/94. Lastly, it was submitted that in paragraph 6, the stand of the Commission has been noted in the last three lines but the same should have been worded differently because allegedly the stand of the Commission was that from the records seized by the Vigilance Department it appeared that no relevant documents were filed by the writ petitioner. So far as the typographical error in paragraph 4 is concerned, it is an innocuous error and hence, it is clarified that ‘serial no.8’ should be read as ‘serial no.1’. It is further clarified in the light of submissions advanced that recommendation by the Commission in favour of the writ petitioner was pursuant to an earlier advertisement no.2/94. The last submission relating to stand of the Commission does not appear to be of significance and on that basis alone or even on the basis of corrections or clarifications indicated above, the result of the LPA cannot suffer any change because the LPA was dismissed after considering all the relevant materials. - 4 - In the end result, the civil review application is dismissed but with the corrections and clarifications indicated above. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)