Miss Femina Debbarma v. National Institute of Open Schooling and Ors
Review Pet./27/2025 · 2025-09-25
T Amarnath Goud
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 1967 (TRI) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 1967 (TRI) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
Review Pet. 27 of 2025
Miss Femina Debbarma, D/O Lt. Bijoy Debbarma, Resident of Khampar Para, Bhagaban Choudhury Para, PO: Bodhjungnagar, District: West Tripura PIN: 799210 ---Petitioner(s) Versus
1. National Institute of Open Schooling, represented by its Secretary (CEO), A-24/25, Institutional Area, Sector 62, Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P)- 201309.
2. Assistant Director (Academic) and Regional Director-in- charge, Regional Centre Guwahati, National Institute of Open Schooling, 1st Floor, Building of Assam Publication Board, Near Board of Secondary Education, Assam, Bamunimaidam, Guwahati, Assam-781021.
3. Regional Director (Evaluation), Regional Centre Guwahati, National Institute of Open Schooling, 1st Floor, Building of Assam Publication Board, Near Board of Secondary Education, Assam, Bamunimaidam, Guwahati, Assam-781021.
4. Director (Evaluation), National Institute of Open Schooling, A-24/25, Institutional Area, Sector-62, NOIDA, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh- 201309. ---Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
: Mr. Tapash Datta Majumder, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Dalit Kalai, Advocate.
Mr. Keneth L Darlong, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None.
HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
Order 25.09.2025
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with
Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeks review/rectification of the order dated 01.09.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 487 of 2025 on account of a clerical/typographical error.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the said
order, the petitioner’s date of birth has been inadvertently recorded as “11.09.1998 to 17.01.2000” instead of the correct date “11.08.1998 to 17.01.2000.” It is further contended that the error occurred due to an inadvertent mistake in drafting the writ
petition and is purely clerical/typographical in nature. The correct record, as reflected in the original mark sheet, shows the date of birth as 11.08.1998.
Accordingly, the said error stands corrected.
In view of the above, the present review petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Dipak DIPAK DAS Digitally signed by DIPAK DAS Date: 2025.09.26 12:57:11 +05'30'