IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3143 of 2004 SOHAN PRASAD & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.13041 of 2007 NARESH KUMAR & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 08 02.02.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that there is a typographical error in respect of the first writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.3143 of 2004. In the order dated 18.01.2011, it is mentioned that six writ petitioners, being petitioner nos.1,2,4,9,11&12, have been working in district Arwal for more than a decade. It is submitted that these numbers are mistaken and have been taken from the supplementary affidavit which in fact refers to the merit list and not the petitioners in the writ petition. Similar is the mistake towards end of the order when the same numbers are to be repeated. Having considered the matter, in my view, learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. Thus, let these numbers to be read as petitioner nos.1,2,3,8,10&11 respectively. There is reference of petitioner nos.3,6,7,8&9 being those persons whose services were regularized by the District Magistrate, Jehanabad, this should be read as petitioner nos.4,6,7&9. Having examined the paragraph-5 of the supplementary counter affidavit, the contention appears to be correct. Let it be so correctly read. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)